Imwashingmypirate wrote:Then this is evidence in itself that the Book of Mormon is false. I say this because if Joseph Smith was truly inspired by an all knowing god, then by all means there ought to be no reason whatsoever to change scripture, likewise there should be no reason to change church doctrin for God knows what is to come. I don't think god is the type of god that is the way religion portay it.
You make some good points, Pirate. I anticipate a day when the Church eventually either loosens or abandons the claim that the Book of Mormon is an actual, real history, and instead treats it in a more allegorical way. I always looked at the Book of Mormon as not actually historically true and so when having a debate previously on a biography of Joseph Smith and manuscript found, I stated that I did not care whom the book was written by because in my eyes it was a book and I read it as a book. A book that can give good advice as does the Bible.
Don't tell my bishop. :D by the way: if you hunt around on the web a bit, I'm sure you can find sites that fully document all the various changes and emendations which have been made to the Book of Mormon over the years. Or you can find stuff dealing with the peculiar fact that passages from the Bible re-appear verbatim in the Book of Mormon, almost as if the Prophet Joseph simply copied from one text to the other.
I have come across the idea that the Bible has been copied in the Book of Mormon. I find that I don't believe the Bible to be historical fact either and the majority of it (especially the Old Testament) to be a story, which might I add has many contradictions.
You say emendations, is this an American word or do you mean amendations?
Mister Scratch wrote:by the way: if you hunt around on the web a bit, I'm sure you can find sites that fully document all the various changes and emendations which have been made to the Book of Mormon over the years. Or you can find stuff dealing with the peculiar fact that passages from the Bible re-appear verbatim in the Book of Mormon, almost as if the Prophet Joseph simply copied from one text to the other.
Obviously witness evidence is never taken into account when pet theories are postulated. All the witness evidence states that there was no copying. Ignoring firsthand evidence is not a good start to determining the truth. If you'd like to revise this in a thread on this board, visit the Dan Vogel thread in the CF. You again show a very simplistic understanding of these points, and have not studied the witness statements. Conjecture is not the same as evidence.
Mister Scratch wrote:by the way: if you hunt around on the web a bit, I'm sure you can find sites that fully document all the various changes and emendations which have been made to the Book of Mormon over the years. Or you can find stuff dealing with the peculiar fact that passages from the Bible re-appear verbatim in the Book of Mormon, almost as if the Prophet Joseph simply copied from one text to the other.
Obviously witness evidence is never taken into account when pet theories are postulated. All the witness evidence states that there was no copying. Ignoring firsthand evidence is not a good start to determining the truth. If you'd like to revise this in a thread on this board, visit the Dan Vogel thread in the CF. You again show a very simplistic understanding of these points, and have not studied the witness statements. Conjecture is not the same as evidence.
Prove the witnesses were not lying. Could it be that the witnesses, each and every single one had some involvement in the writing of the Book of Mormon? In which case they are going to say such things.
Imwashingmypirate wrote:Prove the witnesses were not lying. Could it be that the witnesses, each and every single one had some involvement in the writing of the Book of Mormon? In which case they are going to say such things.
This is the standard response:
Fact: The witnessed state it wasn't copied.
Theory: The Book of Mormon was copied. The witnesses were therefore lying.
Is witness evidence then of any value? One might as well concoct any theory while ignoring evidence.
If the witnesses had "involvement in writing the Book of Mormon", then there is no evidence for this, either.
is it really a statement of the witness if the statement is dictated by Joseph Smith and then the names are typed afterword. Certainly they were held accountable for having their names after the statement. The account of Harris in New York was dictated by Joseph Smith Smith three months after Harris left the church. Smith wrote it and said that Harris told him this..whatever it says ...the translation is correct etc. Why go to New York when when the Seer is Joseph Smith.
Mister Scratch wrote:by the way: if you hunt around on the web a bit, I'm sure you can find sites that fully document all the various changes and emendations which have been made to the Book of Mormon over the years. Or you can find stuff dealing with the peculiar fact that passages from the Bible re-appear verbatim in the Book of Mormon, almost as if the Prophet Joseph simply copied from one text to the other.
Obviously witness evidence is never taken into account when pet theories are postulated. All the witness evidence states that there was no copying. Ignoring firsthand evidence is not a good start to determining the truth. If you'd like to revise this in a thread on this board, visit the Dan Vogel thread in the CF. You again show a very simplistic understanding of these points, and have not studied the witness statements. Conjecture is not the same as evidence.
But we know that the witness statements aren't complete. For example, does every single one of them mention the peep stone, or the hat? I don't think so. This is the problem with witness statements in general: they tend not to paint a full and complete picture.
In any case, I'm going to go ahead and issue a CFR here for you, Ray. You continuously boast about this supposedly superior knowledge and book-learning that you have, and use it as a means for bashing others. Well, go ahead and prove how wise you are then.
Mister Scratch wrote:by the way: if you hunt around on the web a bit, I'm sure you can find sites that fully document all the various changes and emendations which have been made to the Book of Mormon over the years. Or you can find stuff dealing with the peculiar fact that passages from the Bible re-appear verbatim in the Book of Mormon, almost as if the Prophet Joseph simply copied from one text to the other.
Obviously witness evidence is never taken into account when pet theories are postulated. All the witness evidence states that there was no copying. Ignoring firsthand evidence is not a good start to determining the truth. If you'd like to revise this in a thread on this board, visit the Dan Vogel thread in the CF. You again show a very simplistic understanding of these points, and have not studied the witness statements. Conjecture is not the same as evidence.
But we know that the witness statements aren't complete. For example, does every single one of them mention the peep stone, or the hat? I don't think so. This is the problem with witness statements in general: they tend not to paint a full and complete picture.
In any case, I'm going to go ahead and issue a CFR here for you, Ray. You continuously boast about this supposedly superior knowledge and book-learning that you have, and use it as a means for bashing others. Well, go ahead and prove how wise you are then.
LOL Ray is not a Bible basher he is a Book of Mormon basher. That sounds a bit like a BUM basher. XD
Mister Scratch wrote:But we know that the witness statements aren't complete. For example, does every single one of them mention the peep stone, or the hat? I don't think so. This is the problem with witness statements in general: they tend not to paint a full and complete picture.
No, not everyone mentions that. But none said it was copied from other manuscripts.
If witness statements don't paint a full picture, speculation can't do that either.