F*** Religion.

[_marg]

Jason, what "word study" are you referring to?

by the way, Jason one of the reasons Tom Donofrio's work is good to read is that it's understandable to the average person...whereas the Jocker's study requires relying upon the experts and to understand even what they say one needs to have an understanding of the process they used. I'm not discounting it, just saying for the average person it's difficult to follow and perhaps not possible for most people. Tom Donofrio's article can be appreciated without technical skills and in addition, you get to evaluate the objective evidence. You don't rely on someone else's subjective interpretation, which history is open to, particularly when there are powers that be, strongly motivated to influence historical accounts.

[_Ray A]

As far as Ray goes, he essentially used that tactic of brushing me off, by telling me to go read "such and such" when he could have simply said what books according to historian "so and so" said were in Smith's library and why he(RAy) thought Smith was good at writing scripture..in particular the Book of Mormon. In addition, quite frankly from my perspective he sounded like a very religious Mormon apologist for J. Smith yet he'd just previously written a post to me how non-religious he was..so from my perspective, he came across to me as sounding "nuts". His thought process seemed inconsistent.

You are so full of crap. The lack of depth in your thought is just astounding. Frankly, you and Jersey are slowly persuading me that this board isn't worth posting on. Here we go again. Everyone I've exchanged views with on this thread has been reasonable, except you and Jersey. Then you, s***head, come along with your twisted interpretations of what I said. You and Jersey do this all the time, if you're not talking gobbledygook, you want to hijack every thread to a become a Spalding thread - because that's all you know about Mormonism.

So there, have the thread, and have the board as well. I've had enough of you two.

My blog needs attention anyway, and I'm finally persuaded that the amount of time I waste here just having to combat you two whining hens isn't worth it.

Edit: Don' bother commenting on my blog either if you still have a link to it, because anything you write, positive or negative, will be deleted.

[_Daniel Peterson]

But what he shows is that the Book of Mormon is modeled after written historical accounts describing the Am. Rev. War. It's so amazing it makes me want to read the Book of Mormon.

LOL.

Classic.

[_Paul Osborne]

“F”, things are going bad tonight. Ray is pissed off!



Paul O

[_marg]

But what he shows is that the Book of Mormon is modeled after written historical accounts describing the Am. Rev. War. It's so amazing it makes me want to read the Book of Mormon.

LOL.

Classic.

And your response is Classic as well. Nothing new from you.

[_Paul Osborne]

LOL.

What's so funny? Have another blow for your nose.



Paul O

[_Paul Osborne]

And your response is Classic as well. Nothing new from you.

Like I said, a blow for the nose with a marajuana joint sounds just about right for him.



Paul O

[_Daniel Peterson]

But what he shows is that the Book of Mormon is modeled after written historical accounts describing the Am. Rev. War. It's so amazing it makes me want to read the Book of Mormon.

LOL.

Classic.

You've been pontificating confidently for years on the Book of Mormon and its origins, and you still haven't even read it.

ROTFL.

Simply wonderful.

[_Paul Osborne]

Simply wonderful.

Like wooden Book of Mormon swords fashioned after the manner of BYU school teachers?

Now that's incredible!



Paul O

[_Paul Osborne]

Hi Liz!

You're hot baby!



Paul O