Apostacy big winner at oscars

[_marg]

This is your question on the Spalding thread?

Do you KNOW that this conspiracy actually occurred?

Or is this just your theory?

In your "Mormon Roots", you wrote, "IF" it occurred. So you have no hard evidence?

Ray there is no theory for how the Book of Mormon was written, at present which is conclusive. So you can't dismiss S/R based on that criteria.

The question you should be asking yourself is, "what is the best fit theory for all the data that can be gathered". In order to do this effectively one needs to be able to critically evaluate well the evidence. You mentioned something about Book of Mormon witnesses being first hand witnesses as if that a good criteria to judge them in this case. You've got to appreciate what the claims are and the sort of evidence required to support the claims.

Now look at how Vanick responds to you,


"Do you know for a fact that the Book of Mormon came about the way that Mormon history claims it did? By applying all of the same criteria to all of the Mormon historical evidence that is applied to the Spalding claims, there is no solid proof that the Book of Mormon came about the way that Mormon history claims it did. None."

In other words he's answering along similar lines to what I've said to you. No theory offer conclusive proof so you can't dismiss one and accept others. In fact there is no reason to dismiss theories based on inconclusive evidence. Through inductive reasoning..one can deduce a best fit theory.

So the problem in your question is not so much in this case your lack of knowledge of spalding evidence or your wealth of knowledge regarding the Book of Mormon it's your basic critical thinking skills. And I hav every right to comment on that without having any knowledge of the Book of Mormon or at least read it cover to cover.

[_Ray A]

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.

There is no "theory". We have eyewitness evidence of how it was done? How long will that take to sink into your brain? I'll give it a few more million years. Generously.

It is obvious you don't critical think well,

And it's obvious that you criticise without have read much. You know, as well as I do, that you couldn't read the Book of Mormon if you were beaten with a cat-o-nine tails. Yet you talk like some "expert" on it. You're full of hot air.

as Byron noticed you don't comprehend well what you do read,

At least I read. How can you "comprehend" something you've never read?

and you know very little regarding the S/R theory,

What you don't seem to realise yet, is that's it's nothing but a conspiracy 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 and critical thinking go together like oil and water. You know, I really get sick and tired of you and your constant droning about "critical thinking". How do you "critically think" about a religion when you've not read ONE book on Mormonism? You are just hot air.

Have you worked out yet when Moroni first appeared to Joseph Smith. You don't even know the very basics of Mormonism, yet you claim to be an "expert". From the beginning you were full of BS, and you're still full of BS.

As far as the Spalding theory goes you know squat. You've made no decent attempt to learn.

You mean I don't accept conspiracy theories. Yes, I agree there. And you don't seem to understand that a "critical thinker" like you goes for conspiracy theories OVER FACTS! Now let's weigh who the real "critical thinkers" are here.

I obviously have the book so why wouldn't I read it, if it's a topic that interests me.

It interest you only so far as you can "prove" Mormonism to be a fraud. If you were really objective, you'd read much more widely, but you have ONE purpose - to prove Mormonism a fraud.

Marg, you're full of crap. I could not put it any other way.

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.

Excuses, excuses. You have not read it, and you know SQUAT about it.

I am selective on what books I do read. And up until now I've always had better books to spend my time on.

Yet you've spent how many years debating about Mormonism, without having read the Book of Mormon?

Sorry, NO EXCUSE! This is utterly hypocritical.

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.

And you haven't!

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.

The burden on proof is on YOU, and the Spalding conspiracy theorists, to prove that the Book of Mormon was produced in a way totally contrary to every available primary source we have!!!

[_Ray A]

Ray there is no theory for how the Book of Mormon was written, at present which is conclusive. So you can't dismiss S/R based on that criteria.

Give me a bloody break!!!

We have witnesses, and evidence. Yet you choose to go with the conspiracy theories!!

You ignore primary evidence, and instead choose to accept conspiracy theories totally contrary to that evidence.

Don't give me your crap line about "critical thinking" any more, marg. You're just hopelessly biased. Even anti-Mormons have long acknowledged what you fail to acknowledge. That we must go on the primary evidence - NOT conspiracy theories!!

[_marg]

Ray there is no theory for how the Book of Mormon was written, at present which is conclusive. So you can't dismiss S/R based on that criteria.

Give me a bloody break!!!

We have witnesses, and evidence. Yet you choose to go with the conspiracy theories!!

Ray, which theory offers conclusive evidence?

You ignore primary evidence, and instead choose to accept conspiracy theories totally contrary to that evidence.

What's your definition of primary evidence and why should that evidence be strong evidence?

That we must go on the primary evidence - NOT conspiracy theories!!

Ok let's hear your take on that. Perhaps if you don't like talking with me, you can present this in the Spalding thread and Art or Byron can address it. I believe he asked you a question along those lines. That is what evidence you had for whatever theory you do accept versus evidence for the S/R theory. by the way, you are tainting the S/R theory as being a conspiracy and yet what theory do you hold to which isn't a conspiracy?

[_Ray A]

And I hav every right to comment on that without having any knowledge of the Book of Mormon or at least read it cover to cover.

And I have every right right to take your ignorant commentary with total disdain.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Not that Mormon's believe everything in the Book of Mormon.

What parts of the Book of Mormon do mainstream Mormons typically disbelieve?

Additionally, he's stated that unless marg has read apologetic books, etc, that she shouldn't be commenting on Mormon related boards.

Marg is uninformed and dogmatic. That's not a very useful combination.

Have you read the Book of Mormon, by the way?

[_Ray A]

by the way, you are tainting the S/R theory as being a conspiracy and yet what theory do you hold to which isn't a conspiracy?

How about one that looks at the FACTS? Hey, "critical thinker"?

How about one that accepts evidence as any court would? Do you know of any court which accepts a conspiracy theory over firsthand evidence?

Good Lawd!!

[_marg]

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.

There is no "theory". We have eyewitness evidence of how it was done? How long will that take to sink into your brain? I'll give it a few more million years. Generously.

Ray you can't bulldoze a theory through. You either are able to discuss it or not. Which is it?

Even if you accept Book of Mormon witnesses, you still have a theory on how the Book of Mormon was written. So briefly what is the best fit theory according to you for how the Book of Mormon was written?

It is obvious you don't critical think well,

And it's obvious that you criticise without have read much. You know, as well as I do, that you couldn't read the Book of Mormon if you were beaten with a cat-o-nine tails. Yet you talk like some "expert" on it. You're full of hot air.

I don't talk details on the Book of Mormon. I've never claims to be an expert on it, that's a false charge.

as Byron noticed you don't comprehend well what you do read,

At least I read. How can you "comprehend" something you've never read?

Apparently it seems I read more than you do. It's quite apparent that you haven't read Debono and were just lying about that. It's also apparrent you haven't read Vanick's book.

and you know very little regarding the S/R theory,

What you don't seem to realise yet, is that's it's nothing but a conspiracy theory!!

Well Ray tell me which theory for the Book of Mormon isn't a conspiracy theory. by the way, conspiracies exist doesn't mean conspiracy theories should be discounted.

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 and critical thinking go together like oil and water. You know, I really get sick and tired of you and your constant droning about "critical thinking". How do you "critically think" about a religion when you've not read ONE book on Mormonism? You are just hot air.

We are discussing the S/R theory. Stay focussed. It is irrelevant how sick you are of my comments re critical thinking. I don't know how else to explain it. Offering opinion again and again, which requires no knowledge is ...self indulgent.

Have you worked out yet when Moroni first appeared to Joseph Smith. You don't even know the very basics of Mormonism, yet you claim to be an "expert". From the beginning you were full of BS, and you're still full of BS.

First of all there is no evidence angels exist. So Moroni no matter what else is said, is a concocted story. And frankly this is a tangent and nothing to do with the S/R theory.

As far as the Spalding theory goes you know squat. You've made no decent attempt to learn.

You mean I don't accept conspiracy theories. Yes, I agree there. And you don't seem to understand that a "critical thinker" like you goes for conspiracy theories OVER FACTS! Now let's weigh who the real "critical thinkers" are here.

Ray which theory do you propose is the best fit theory on how the Book of Mormon was written?

I obviously have the book so why wouldn't I read it, if it's a topic that interests me.

It interest you only so far as you can "prove" Mormonism to be a fraud. If you were really objective, you'd read much more widely, but you have ONE purpose - to prove Mormonism a fraud.

Right and this comes from you who acknowledged they couldn't be bothered to read the book sent to them..Who WRote the Book of Mormon which lots of people have explained to you has a lot of information.

Marg, you're full of s***. I could not put it any other way.

Good and what theory is the best fit theory?

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.

Excuses, excuses. You have not read it, and you know SQUAT about it.

I don't lie.

I am selective on what books I do read. And up until now I've always had better books to spend my time on.

Yet you've spent how many years debating about Mormonism, without having read the Book of Mormon?

Sorry, NO EXCUSE! This is utterly hypocritical.

My focus has never been the Book of Mormon. It's obviously Ray you are just looking for excuses to back out of discussing your best fit theory for the Book of Mormon.

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.

And you haven't!

No I don't comment on the word print. I've said I don't understand it. I understand some parts, but certainly a minimal amount.

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.

The burden on proof is on YOU, and the Spalding conspiracy theorists, to prove that the Book of Mormon was produced in a way totally contrary to every available primary source we have!!!

No Ray. There is no accepted theory for who wrote the Book of Mormon. And whatever theory is presented or argued for needs to be backed by evidence and needs to fit all the evidence, not just selected pieces.

[_marg]

by the way, you are tainting the S/R theory as being a conspiracy and yet what theory do you hold to which isn't a conspiracy?

How about one that looks at the FACTS? Hey, "critical thinker"?

How about one that accepts evidence as any court would? Do you know of any court which accepts a conspiracy theory over firsthand evidence?

Good Lawd!!

RAy which theory do you think is the best fit theory for Who Wrote the Book of Mormon.

And please answer my question in a previous post, what do you mean by primary evidence and why do you consider that strong evidence.

[_Ray A]

Ray you can't bulldoze a theory through. You either are able to discuss it or not. Which is it?

You're the one presenting the theory, not me. (reality check)

Even if you accept Book of Mormon witnesses, you still have a theory on how the Book of Mormon was written. So briefly what is the best fit theory according to you for how the Book of Mormon was written?

Not by Joseph placing a MS in a hat, which is your theory.

I don't talk details on the Book of Mormon. I've never claims to be an expert on it, that's a false charge.

You can't claim to be anything on it, because you've never read it. You don't even know when Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith. How would you be expected to know the content of what's in the Book of Mormon?

Apparently it seems I read more than you do. It's quite apparent that you haven't read Debono and were just lying about that. It's also apparrent you haven't read Vanick's book.

I still don't believe you've read all of Vanick's footnotes, which is what Shades picked me up on.

So I ask for my list again:

1) How many books on Mormonism have you read?

2) How many books on NDEs have you read.

3) When did Moroni first appear to Joseph Smith?

4) Who is Sterling W. Sill?

5) Have you ever heard of a religion called Mormonism? What do you know about it?

Well Ray tell me which theory for the Book of Mormon isn't a conspiracy theory. by the way, conspiracies exist doesn't mean conspiracy theories should be discounted.

I theorise that Jack Ruby killed John F. Kennedy. Prove me wrong. It's, of course, "only a theory".

We are discussing the S/R theory. Stay focussed. It is irrelevant how sick you are of my comments re critical thinking. I don't know how else to explain it. Offering opinion again and again, which requires no knowledge is ...self indulgent.

Like your constant budgie harping on "critical thinking". Hi folks, meet marg, my budgie. Marg? "Hello, you have poor critical thinking skills. Hello, you have poor critical thinking skills. Hello, you have poor critical thinking skills."

Sorry folks, marg hasn't had a decent crap for a few days.

First of all there is no evidence angels exist.

And there's no evidence that a hypothetical Spalding MS exist either.

So Moroni no matter what else is said, is a concocted story.

As is the hypothetical Spalding MS.

And frankly this is a tangent and nothing to do with the S/R theory.

It does.

Ray which theory do you propose is the best fit theory on how the Book of Mormon was written?

Not the Spalding conspiracy theory.

Right and this comes from you who acknowledged they couldn't be bothered to read the book sent to them..Who WRote the Book of Mormon which lots of people have explained to you has a lot of information.

When did Moroni first appear to Joseph Smith?

I don't lie.

You do.

My focus has never been the Book of Mormon.

That's very obvious.

It's obviously Ray you are just looking for excuses to back out of discussing your best fit theory for the Book of Mormon.

It was not by reading foolscap buried in a hat.

No I don't comment on the word print. I've said I don't understand it. I understand some parts, but certainly a minimal amount.

Probably about as much as you understand Mormonism.

No Ray. There is no accepted theory for who wrote the Book of Mormon. And whatever theory is presented or argued for needs to be backed by evidence and needs to fit all the evidence, not just selected pieces.

We have the evidence. And one thing you can be assured of is that Joseph didn't read a maunscript hidden in a hat.