Fence Sitter wrote:Buffalo wrote:Yes, it authentically exists. It's a book. But it's not a historical document. It was written in the 19th century, and the inclusion of Deutero-Isaiah, which could not have been on the brass plates, confirms it.
Since it is well known that Joseph Smith did not even look at the plates when he was translating, what evidence do we have to prove or disprove that the portions of duetero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon were even on the plates? Do we know that everything contained within the Book of Mormon was on the plates? If, as part of the 'translation' process more information was added to the Book of Mormon than is contained within the plates, does that invalidate the Book of Mormon?
By the wayI think it is a 19th century document.
Mr. Fence Sitter,
If more information was added to the Book of Mormon than what is contained within the plates, how can anyone know that anything contained in the plates found its way into the Book of Mormon? Perhaps nothing in the Book of Mormon has a linguistic corollary in Reformed Egyptian (or any other language) that might be scratched into the plates.
Perhaps there were no plates, or only plates Joseph Smith Jr fashioned up himself to show the 'witnesses'.
Perhaps the plates were just a catalyst so that Joseph Smith Jr would think that God knew what He was telling Joseph Smith Jr to say out the hat, to his scribes.
I wonder why Joseph Smith Jr believed anything God and Jesus said to him during the First Vision, or anything that the angel with the flaming sword said, or the numerous 'revelations' in the Doctrine and Covenants? Where was the physical world prop that Joseph Smith Jr apparently needed as a catalyst so that he would be prepared to receive the words of God, and which he apparently needed in order to take the Book of Mormon dictation from God and the Book of Abraham dictation from God.
What a tangled web one weaves, when at first he sets out to deceive.
Regards,
Spider.
