F*** Religion.

[_marg]

For the record the response you made was to my comment about what of J. Smith's writings would impress you.

Pull the other leg. Do you seriously think I was born yesterday?

What do you seriously take me for?

Go get a bloody life.

Yes I do think you were born yesterday.

Looking back, now I realize what your response was about, it was because you didn't like my comment that I didn't think Smith wrote the Book of Mormon.

You've done absolutely nothing Ray to look into the S/R theory. To date you haven't been able to discuss it, because you've not even looked into it.

Just what have you done to evaluate the the S/R theory, that qualifies you to be knowledgable to judge it? Have you taken a look at the extensive list of parallels that Tom Donofrio's has found with various authors. Have you read Tom's essay? I bring that up because there's been a discussion going on the board about it, but I'm pretty certain you've not looked into it.

You wrote:

As Kirster Stendhal observed of Joseph Smith, he "showed us how ancient scripture was written". That is, not necessarily "by the gift and power of God", but he just had a "talent" for it. He could "write scripture", and persuade the most emotionally gullible that it actually came from God.

Right, and the emotionally gullible believe Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon

[_why me]

I don't understand where Why me is coming from on this. There is so much uncertainty to life, let alone religion..!

Mary

I have always said that a part of faith is doubt. They both go hand in hand. For Ray, doubt outweighs faith. In terms of the Book of Mormon we have many witnesses to the book. 11 in all. And then if we include their wives, who most likely asked their husbands repeatedly about the experience, the web of lies becomes larger because I know that the husbands would have come clean or given doubt. It seems quite extraordinary that all kept their mouths shut about the fraud, if there were a fraud. The early beginnings of Mormonism is what is faith promoting. Now of course, if it were a fraud, it would be one of the biggest frauds of humankind without an explanation of why all the witnesses and their wives would keep their mouths shut.

[_why me]

WTF??? Only if one has a pre-existing and strong emotional commitment to it. Other than that, its fraudulence is transparently obvious.

Again, WTF???? I am as sure that Mormonism is a fraud as I'm sure that Mick Jagger likes women.

It is not so obvious. You can not be sure that Mormonism is a fraud because your understanding is based on speculation. Now if you have convinced your mind that it is a fraud, well, good for you. But that doesn't make it a fraud. No one has come up with a viable alternative to the Book of Mormon story as stated by Joseph Smith.

No manucript. No rough drafts. No proof that sidney wrote it. No proof that Joseph Smith wrote it.

Now if we place ourselves at that time we can see that we would need a lot of paper, pens, and ink. Plus, most writers made copies of their work, in case of fire etc. But certainly, the person writing this book would need to keep in under lock and key. And then of course, with all the secrecy, the writer would need to be sure that the fraud would be successful. And in this case, it would seem highly unlikely of success as we consider opening up the fraud to 11 more people.

And then this fraud would take a very good plan of action which would mean secret meetings with the conspirators with conspirators taking notes of future plans for the fraud. And yet, nothing of the kind has been discovered. The odds were against this 'fraud' succeeding.

[_Jason Bourne]

That's a distinct possibility. I have no verdict on that, probably because I haven't studied it enough. I don't rule out anything. But I do think that some individuals can produce "extraordinary" writings seemingly "beyond their natural capability". That doesn't mean it's "supernatural". As Kirster Stendhal observed of Joseph Smith, he "showed us how ancient scripture was written". That is, not necessarily "by the gift and power of God", but he just had a "talent" for it. He could "write scripture", and persuade the most emotionally gullible that it actually came from God.

When it didn't.

Well since I don't believe J.Smith wrote much if anything of the Book of Mormon, and my impression is that he used a scribe at most times, I don't know what particular writings you attribute to him, that impress you.

Marg

You again demonstrate your ignorance of so much about Joseph Smith. Really your knowledge seems limited to the things that bolster your particular favorite theories about Smith. Let me ask you a question. If the apostle Paul used a scribe does that mean we do not attribute his letters to him? Smith used a scribe yes. He also wrote much, including letters. Prophet or not, fraud or not, the man still came up with some ideas that are intriguing on the religious front and that many find inspiring and fulfilling. I know for a skeptic such as yourself who believes nothing or has faith on nothing but what she thinks she can see but it is a fact never the less. Start with the recent first volume of the Joseph Smith Papers that was recently published.

And why did you call Ray a nut? Seems like you were having a well balanced conversation then you attacked him.

[_marg]

You again demonstrate your ignorance of so much about Joseph Smith. Really your knowledge seems limited to the things that bolster your particular favorite theories about Smith. Let me ask you a question. If the apostle Paul used a scribe does that mean we do not attribute his letters to him? Smith used a scribe yes. He also wrote much, including letters. Prophet or not, fraud or not, the man still came up with some ideas that are intriguing on the religious front and that many find inspiring and fulfilling.

Oh you are knowledgable are you? Well what books did Smith have in his library before the Book of Mormon? How do you know? What evidence is there? Did he read them? How do you know? Was he an avid history reader pre-BoM? What evidence is there in the Book of Mormon of what the author likely read?

I know for a skeptic such as yourself who believes nothing or has faith on nothing but what she thinks she can see but it is a fact never the less. Start with the recent first volume of the Joseph Smith Papers that was recently published.

Why don't you read http://www.mormonthink.com/influences.htm and then get back to me with your comments on it .

[_Jason Bourne]

Oh you are knowledgable are you?

I think I am more knowledgeable about what my point was, and that is what Smith wrote and taught, than many and certainly more than you. I also think I know more about the the LDS History than many including you.

Well what books did Smith have in his library before the Book of Mormon? How do you know? What evidence is there? Did he read them? How do you know? Was he an avid history reader pre-BoM? What evidence is there in the Book of Mormon of what the author likely read?

That was not my point Marg. I am not playing into your typical 21 question game that you use to deflect what seems to be your painfully apparent lack of knowledge about things LDS other than your pet issues. Those I will grant you that you seem to have plenty of information on. But your focus is rather narrow.

My only point was that Smith said and wrote a lot about a lot of different things. Whether or not he was a prophet, on religious topics he seemed to have brought forth some unique and intriguing ideas.

I said nothing about the Book of Mormon. Though I do think is adds some fascinating commentary on things about Christianity regardless of how it came to be.

Why don't you read http://www.mormonthink.com/influences.htm and then get back to me with your comments on it

Why don't you go and review some of Smith's thoughts on the internal nature of the essence that makes us what we are. Start with D&C 93. I am not taking any assignments from you today. When you demonstrate that you have a more broad based knowledge about some of these things than your comment to Ray that prompted my comments then maybe we will have something to discuss.

[_marg]

Oh you are knowledgable are you?

I think I am more knowledgeable about what my point was, and that is what Smith wrote and taught, than many and certainly more than you. I also think I know more about the the LDS History than many including you.

Good

Well what books did Smith have in his library before the Book of Mormon? How do you know? What evidence is there? Did he read them? How do you know? Was he an avid history reader pre-BoM? What evidence is there in the Book of Mormon of what the author likely read?

That was not my point Marg. I am not playing into your typical 21 question game that you use to deflect what seems to be your painfully apparent lack of knowledge about things LDS other than your pet issues. Those I will grant you that you seem to have plenty of information on. But your focus is rather narrow.

I'm not trying to trick you. This pertains to Ray saying that J. Smith had a library pre-BoM with the inference he was well read and therefore wrote the Book of Mormon. I've not made derogaratory comments about Smith. I said to Ray after his comment indicated he was impressed with Smith's scriptural writing abilities " I don't believe J. Smith wrote much if anything of the Book of Mormon, and my impression is that he used a scribe at most times, I don't know what particular writing you attribute to him,that impress you."

Whose playing games here. You jump into the thread to tell me I'm not knowledgable when I never claimed in this thread I was. I ask a sincere question and you dodge them.

Do you know if Smith had a library pre-BoM. Do you know whether or not he was an avid reader. Do you know if he read history books? and to all those questions if you do know, how do you know.

My only point was that Smith said and wrote a lot about a lot of different things. Whether or not he was a prophet, on religious topics he seemed to have brought forth some unique and intriguing ideas.

Big deal and where have I argued against those points?

I said nothing about the Book of Mormon. Though I do think is adds some fascinating commentary on things about Christianity regardless of how it came to be.

Ray said Smith had amazing ability to write scripture. So the Book of Mormon is very relevant to that comment. What the hell are you jumping into this thread for, to dish you ad hominems. You tell me I'm not knowledgable and yet when I ask you to display your knowledge..I get nothing

Why don't you read http://www.mormonthink.com/influences.htm and then get back to me with your comments on it


Why don't you go and review some of Smith's thoughts on the internal nature of the essence that makes us what we are. Start with D&C 93. I am not taking any assignments from you today. When you demonstrate that you have a more broad based knowledge about some of these things than your comment to Ray that prompted my comments then maybe we will have something to discuss.

I had a point for you reading that web site, it was very relevant to this discussion. That web site with evidence shows the sort of material the Book of Mormon author read and was very familiar with. Don't you think that's important in assessing who wrote the Book of Mormon? How can one justify claiming that someone has great scriptural writing abilities, if the evidence indicates they likely didn't write those particular scriptures?

But as usual Jason the only purpose for you to comment is to throw out your insults.

If you are going to claim I have no knowledge then at least show yours...otherwise “F” off.

[_Jason Bourne]

But as usual Jason the only purpose for you to comment is to throw out your insults.

YAWN.


You are are indeed a one note wonder. Amazing how so often you whine about ad hominem yet your posts are full of them.

If you are going to claim I have no knowledge then at least show yours...otherwise f*** off.

My sentiments to you as well Margie.

Happy 4th. I have more interesting things to do than deal with your smugness.

[_marg]

Jason,

You've got plenty of time to jump into threads and dish out your insults, but no time to add substance. And that's very typical of you. You are the one claiming knowledge here, not me, so display it.

If you have any relevant knowledge about what J. Smith read previous to the Book of Mormon then say what it is.

And as I said Tom Donofrio's work gives alot of insight into the writer/writers of the Book of Mormon. I suggest if you wish to claim to be knowledgable with regards to the scriptural writing ability of the writer/writers of the Book of Mormon, you read it.

[_Jersey Girl]

Well what books did Smith have in his library before the Book of Mormon? How do you know? What evidence is there? Did he read them? How do you know? Was he an avid history reader pre-BoM? What evidence is there in the Book of Mormon of what the author likely read?

That was not my point Marg. I am not playing into your typical 21 question game that you use to deflect what seems to be your painfully apparent lack of knowledge about things LDS other than your pet issues. Those I will grant you that you seem to have plenty of information on. But your focus is rather narrow

Hang the hell on, Jason. Her questions were based on information that Ray injected into the thread. I've read marg for 10 years (10 years too long some days! :-) and she is not playing games with you.


*pinky swear*