Did Joseph Smith plagiarize the KJV in the Book of Mormon?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_CaliforniaKid
_Emeritus
Posts: 4247
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:47 am

Post by _CaliforniaKid »

why me wrote:You see, Don, I can not believe that Joseph Smith wrote that book. As emma said, he could not put coherent words together and he was quite ignorant in writing.


You don't really believe that, do you?
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

CaliforniaKid wrote:
why me wrote:You see, Don, I can not believe that Joseph Smith wrote that book. As emma said, he could not put coherent words together and he was quite ignorant in writing.


You don't really believe that, do you?


All one has to do is read Joseph's early letters and read his sermons as recounted by others to dispense with this myth.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

Sethbag wrote:Charity, can you find current Prophetic or Apostolic teaching from LDS leaders confirming that God sometimes animates stones in some way so that people perceive visions or revelations through them? Could be I just wasn't paying attention, but I don't recall that ever being part of the official line.


"The Prophet [Joseph Smith] also had a seer stone which was separate and distinct from the Urim and Thummim. . . The Urim and Thummim are spoken of as being on the altar in the Manti Temple when that building was dedicated. The Urim and Thummim so spoken of, however, was the seer stone in the possession of the Prophet Joseph Smith in the early days. This seer stone is now in the poessesion of the Church. " Mormon Doctrine, p.818-819
_DonBradley
_Emeritus
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 6:58 am

Post by _DonBradley »

why me wrote:I can see your point. But as you may know, the critic writes all interpretations as facts when actually they are speculations. And as I have pointed out previously on a postmo board, all the theories about the Book of Mormon cannot be right and so, critics need to choose their story and go with it.


No more so than all apologists and believers need to "choose their story" and go with it.

There is no evidence to support that Joseph Smith dictated the Bible references. I have not seen no scribe say so and his wife does not seem to say so either. And so, what we do have is speculation.


Utterly false. The evidence for is use of the Bible is all over the text (as described above, and which you have not engaged). And you've yet to answer my questions about the specific content and context of the testimony of Emma and of David Whitmer. Answer those questions accurately, from the data, and then try to argue that their testimony is relevant to whether Joseph Smith used a Bible for the biblical portions of the text.

Simple refusal to engage the evidence doesn't really make it go away, WhyMe.

You see, Don, I can not believe that Joseph Smith wrote that book. As emma said, he could not put coherent words together and he was quite ignorant in writing.


This again relies on external testimony as the primary evidence over the texts themselves. We have early samples of Joseph Smith's writing, from 1829 forward, and while it is ungrammatical (like the original text of the Book of Mormon), it is quite coherent and intelligible. The man's own writings show that he could write coherent, well-worded texts; so external testimony to the contrary is irrelevant.

Don
_GoodK

Post by _GoodK »

charity wrote:
Sethbag wrote:Charity, can you find current Prophetic or Apostolic teaching from LDS leaders confirming that God sometimes animates stones in some way so that people perceive visions or revelations through them? Could be I just wasn't paying attention, but I don't recall that ever being part of the official line.


"The Prophet [Joseph Smith] also had a seer stone which was separate and distinct from the Urim and Thummim. . . The Urim and Thummim are spoken of as being on the altar in the Manti Temple when that building was dedicated. The Urim and Thummim so spoken of, however, was the seer stone in the possession of the Prophet Joseph Smith in the early days. This seer stone is now in the poessesion of the Church. " Mormon Doctrine, p.818-819


The same stone from the trial of 1826?
_BishopRic
_Emeritus
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:59 pm

Post by _BishopRic »

why me wrote:
BishopRic wrote:
Oh Charity, I wish you could see how hypocritical this is. How many times have mopologists said "could have been," or "maybe it was" in reference to the lack of scientific archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. Consistency please!


Not to the extent that the critics have. The woulda, coulda and shoulda are a critic speciality especially with hypothetical illustrations. On your postmo board, the people seem to be engaged in such terminology all the time, mind you, under disguise as fact.


Kinda like when a TBM says "I know the church is true, and Joseph's Myth was a true profit of God?"
Überzeugungen sind oft die gefährlichsten Feinde der Wahrheit.
[Certainty (that one is correct) is often the most dangerous enemy of the
truth.] - Friedrich Nietzsche
_karl61
_Emeritus
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:29 pm

Post by _karl61 »

charity wrote:
Sethbag wrote:Charity, can you find current Prophetic or Apostolic teaching from LDS leaders confirming that God sometimes animates stones in some way so that people perceive visions or revelations through them? Could be I just wasn't paying attention, but I don't recall that ever being part of the official line.


"The Prophet [Joseph Smith] also had a seer stone which was separate and distinct from the Urim and Thummim. . . The Urim and Thummim are spoken of as being on the altar in the Manti Temple when that building was dedicated. The Urim and Thummim so spoken of, however, was the seer stone in the possession of the Prophet Joseph Smith in the early days. This seer stone is now in the poessesion of the Church. " Mormon Doctrine, p.818-819


And I bet every church president since Brigham Young has put that seer stone in a hat, put their face in the hat, and have not seen a damn thing. I bet a bunch of apostles tried too - "hey, let me have a try".
I want to fly!
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Let me begin by stating clearly that my mood is no better today than it was last evening. Having lost the use of my new computer due to warranty tweaking, then blowing out the old computer, having it replaced with an even more inadequate computer substitute I wish to inform you that my cuss words this evening will appear in "blue" so please put your mod stun gun on stand by.


Bond...James Bond wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:How would you suggest using the colors blue and red to detail a lengthy dialogue/discussion? Would you combine those with black?


I wouldn't use colors at all. I'd use the quote feature. But if you must use colors pick colors that are bit more distinguishable than brown, black, and red. Can I buy some blue?

Good, you could have simply made a request to JAK who is, unlike me, probably the most civilized poster online, to the effect "JAK, might I suggest using black, red and blue for better contrast in your posts?"


I disagree with what you've stated (I'm gonna cuss a little, so get your mod stun gun ready) about being "long winded". specifying a number of acceptable paragraphs, links though I do agree with your statement regarding "8 minute" paragraphs.


I'm not giving a word limit or paragraph limit. Some things will take 5 10 whatever paragraphs. But cutting down on the amount of stuff you type when it's possible is a big help.

When attempting to engage another poster, JAK will never cut down his posts. You can count on him to write lengthy detailed posts in order to make his transmission as precise as he can.

I am accustomed to a threaded view and know what it can do for discussions, especially those discussions that one considers topical debate. I am also accustomed to closely detailing a discussion in order to make communication and transmission of thought as clear and consistent as is possible. The building up of quotes is what I think of as "discussion".


Does anyone read that build up of quote boxes? No.....99.9% of us skip to the last line and read the new material. Give people some credit. I remember the plot of 1000 page novels. Odds are I can remember what your last couple of posts on a given subject were. And if not...I can scroll up and look at them.

Yes, those of us who give a damn for discussion care to read the build up of quotes on this linear format. Skipping to the last line to read new material is what non-serious ding dongs do. JAK is not a non-serious ding dong. He is documenting the discussion for the reader and he's not using a build up of quote boxes. He's using color coding because this linear format is a huge pain in the ass to scroll back through especially when a thread builds up pages.

I fail to see how anyone can call his posts "convoluted" when he's attempting to squeeze a thought out of another poster on this linear format. It is frustrating, at best, to try to attempt to stay on point or maintain a train of thought with another poster when having to scroll through umpteen posts in order to even locate their last reply to us. When we try to use the quote feature, it doesn't pick up multiple lines of dialogue. When someone like JAK tries to pick up multiple lines of dialogue by using color coding, then there is criticism. He is trying (as others of us do) to maintain the integrity of a dialogue on a board where this isn't the norm. Were he to post only in the CF (which is where his level of discourse belongs) he would still run into the same issue.


Again...all that quoting gets in the way of skipping to the last thing that's written.

"All that quoting" is a damn discussion. Geez.

(Question for the board: IS THERE ANYONE WHO DOESN"T ALMOST ALWAYS SKIP THE QUOTE BOXES TO THE LAST WRITTEN PART?)

Yes, if a topic is of interest to me and especially when I choose to throw in, I read the build up of quotes whether they're in boxes or lined up as JAK has done.

Do we all need to reduce ourselves to b***s*** level in order to avoid criticism around here?


Yeah we do...if you hadn't noticed some of us (most of us) are here to shoot the s***, get a laugh and maybe pick up a useful piece of information.

Good, then shoot the crap and leave serious discussors to what they are also interested in doing. Solid gold money back guarantee on this assertion...if JAK were doing this to DCP there would be a standing ovation instead of the bitching and whining.
I likely have insulted folks here or the entire board. I honestly don't give a damn. I cannot express to you the compromises that even I (ignoramus that I am) have to make on this board in order to follow the linear format when a topic is of interest to me. In most cases, I simply give up. We make polls to get smilies but criticize a serious discussor for attempting to detail a dialogue. Hey, I got no problem with that.


If you want the threaded view so bad then donate 20 bucks to this board and stipulate that you want a damn threaded view.

I've discussed the threaded view option with Shades previously. What is the relevance of donating 20 bucks?

JAK if you are reading here, look at how I used color and lines in my reply to marg on the "Christianity/Mormonism" thread initiated by GoodK. I took the first series of exchanges, reposted them in black (as we used to do Jersey Girl: marg:) and then added my new comments in blue. I drew a line between each series of exchanges in our posts and did the same throughout. See if that has the effect you want in your posts. What you could do with that, as you continue along, is blacken all previous responses and only use one color to denote the new responses. So instead of using multiple colors, you're only using black and blue. ;-)


This is good information. Another thing would be to number the beginnings of each set of dialogue. Such as:

1) JAk originally stated: The sky is blue

Bond responded: the sky is red

Jak now says: Bond stop being a knucklehead.

2) Jak originally stated: The grass is green.

[color="blue"]Bond responded: The grass is red.[/color]

Jak now says: Bond stop being a knucklehead.

Do NOT tell JAK to start numbering things and don't say you weren't warned!


You'll also notice that putting a distinct color (such as blue which is easier to discern from red or brown) between JAK's stuff can allow for two colors. But I still like the quote feature.


We aren't permitted to build up quote boxes on this board. Shades has stated so several times. This isn't the first time the issue of how to format posts has come up.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

JAK,

I have paid you two compliments on this thread:

"JAK isn't a bullshitter."
"JAK is not a non-serious ding dong."

I expect presents.

Jersey Girl
:-D
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Compliments

Post by _JAK »

Jersey Girl wrote:JAK,

I have paid you two compliments on this thread:

"JAK isn't a bullshitter."
"JAK is not a non-serious ding dong."

I expect presents.

Jersey Girl
:-D


Thank you Jersey Girl.

I have been away. I’ll answer this before I loose it, THEN look back for the compliments.

I don’t know about “presents.” What did you have in mind?

My compliments can be safely paid to you as well, I’m sure.

Now, I’ll go searching.

JAK
Post Reply