So Ray I see you have avoided answering my questions re Debono, be honest you've never read anything he's written.
Ray A wrote:Jersey Girl wrote:That the Book of Mormon is "foundational scripture" has little if anything to do with your charge that marg not having read it is in no position to comment on "what Mormon's believe". Likewise your assertion that marg shouldn't be commenting on Mormon related boards unless she has read apologetic books, etc.
And likewise neither you nor marg should be commenting on my posts on the Spalding thread.
And why is that RAy, why shoudl I not comment on ridiculous questions that shows how poorly you critically think? No theory has conclusive proof for who wrote the Book of Mormon so you can not dismiss the S/R theory on that, nor does lack of conclusive evidence mean no theory is a good strong theory.
It is obvious you don't critical think well, as Byron noticed you don't comprehend well what you do read, and you know very little regarding the S/R theory, plus your posts don't add anything of value when you give your ignorant opinion. How many friggin times do you need to write a post saying you don't accept the S/R theory. That requires no knowledge, no critical thinking whatsoever.
You have not read the Book of Mormon, yet how many years have you been commenting on Mormon-related boards without knowing squat about the Book of Mormon, nor having ever read it?
I realize you are addressing this to J.G. I have read portions, I have read outlines of how it is constructed which was written by Mormons. I have read many discussions on it. I have read portions especially when they relate to a a discussion I'm reading.
As far as the Spalding theory goes you know squat. You've made no decent attempt to learn.
So don't get on your high horse like marg while both of you act the hypocrite, having not read Vanick. That marg can quote a footnote doesn't mean she's read it, any more than I have.
If the issue here is about honesty I've answered your questions regarding Vanick's book. I read it about 4 years ago. In the last few weeks I started to read it again. I've had discussions about it previously on message boards and with you and I remember at the time you promised to read it, so Shades sent it to you. It's very rude for you to keep insisting I haven't read it, when I have answered your questions and it's not like this is the first time I've ever mentioned that book. I obviously have the book so why wouldn't I read it, if it's a topic that interests me.
by the way I do not comment on the Book of Mormon unless it is something I do in fact have knowledge of. One can appreciate a book is written in King James english by verification without reading the entire book. One can discuss DNA evidence of Am Indians without reading the Book of Mormon. One can appreciate time line of events again without reading entire book. Can appreciate where characters travelled from, what groups traveled and when to America without reading entire book, things such as all nephites die except one without reading entire book and the list goes on. One can evaluate Book of Mormon witness claims without reading book, can evaluate spalding witness statements without reading Book of Mormon.
I am selective on what books I do read. And up until now I've always had better books to spend my time on.
Now if I was to ever wish to understand the wordprint study and perhaps discuss it, I would read the Book of Mormon, I think it's necessary in that case.
by the way, one can also appreciate that things which defy natural physical laws are extraordinary, and unlikely to happen. Therefore they require extraordinary evidence to warrant acceptance. So one can appreciate that just because a few people closely connected claim a seer stone which glowed words does not warrant acceptance. The burden of proof is for them or whoever wishes to be taken seriously for such claims to provide strong evidence. And same goes with claims of angels, gold plates which get taken away by an angel, dead men which are able to come back to life, travel and speak to people. Those sorts of claims should be rejected unless the evidence to support warrants acceptance. So again one doesn't need to read Book of Mormon to evaluate the evidence for these claims.