Book of Mormon a Stolen Novel?

[_Themis]

It's easy to make a claim such as "Spaulding wrote it", which is totally ludicrous. First, the lack of a single page of the manuscript to verify writing styles and storyline as well as other content. The fact that the writing styles within the Book of Mormon vary from book to book.

Different studies show different results. Oh well I will wait until more study is done in this area.

There is no evidence that either Joseph Smith or Solomon Spaulding had any clue as to what chiasmus is. The fact the library resources for that time and area were so minimal, the research that would be needed to create such a literary piece, in such a short time, would make the chances astronomical.

It was a known writing style and popular in poetry. It also is common in the Bible and other texts, and they are created quite naturally. Some apologists argue chiamus is not evidence for the Book of Mormon since they would not translate well from one language to another. You might want to check out some of those articles from fair and farms.

[_Themis]

Joseph spent almost all of his time trying to help support his family. That is known.

CFR It really is not known what he was doing in his early years before before 1830's. This doesn't mean he was meeting with Sidney, but it cannot be dismissed as impossible.

Then we have the issue of the 11 witnesses that saw the plates. The list of evidences are many.

Many of the statements bring up questions about what really happened. Witnesses are common for a lot of claims I doubt you believe. James strang is an interesting char. I look at the Book of Mormon and things like the Book of Abraham and see if they are what they are claimed to be.

[_Tobin]

If you don't believe the mythical Spaulding manuscript existed, then why offer it? Were you lying to LittleNipper?

I already stated that there is evidence for it. I didn't say I believed there was a manuscript or even if there was that it contained the Book of Mormon. It's a possibility, but I don't see enough evidence to make it conclusive.

Again, by your standard of what you call evidence, there is evidence that there is really a Santa Claus or tooth fairy. Many children believe have seen Santa at the mall for example. That makes him just as real as your mythical Spaulding manuscript. The problem with your evidence is it is uncorroborated and so there is simply no reason to believe in it (nor address it).

The reason I don't know much about the mythical Spaulding manuscript is because it never existed. Nobody has ever seen it, examined it or even seen a shred of evidence it existed (not even a draft of it). For all intentional purposes, it is the tooth fairy.

You were given a link on the first page and I know you have ignored it. There are witnesses. You can pretend the evidence doesn't exist, but it won't change anything.

I looked at your link. Its a fantastic piece of fiction based on a mythical manuscript that to-date nobody has ever been able to prove ever existed.

You still don't get it. I've seen God and spoke with him, so apparently the scriptures are true that you can speak with him. You seem to miss that point again and again and again and again...

Although no one here believes you saw God, I have said many times that it is not the issue. Seeking God and having him show up is. Your belief about it is not seeking God since you said you were an ex-Mormon atheist at the time.

Again, I don't care if you never seek God. That isn't the point. If you want to know that Mormonism is true, that is what you have to do. Otherwise, you can just stay as you are and wait for God to show up.

I have offered one simple explanation. You have yet to identify how one explanation magically changes into two different theories when I OFFERED ONE EXPLANATION.

You have offered two. One was the catalyst theory, the other was the duel meaning where those pesty Egyptians took Abraham's story and created there own story. Two different theories, and neither has any evidence and is totally made up.

I never stated the Egyptian papyri had a dual meaning, so please get that out of your head. Let me say this again, there was an original story written by Abraham. It no longer exists. The Egyptian papyri was the impetus for Joseph Smith to reveal that account. Please stop saying there are two theories here when I've explained this to you many times and you can't seem to grasp it.

I think we may actually be making progress here. The way you identify what is inspired and what is man-made is you speak with God. That's the key you are missing.

You state a lot of things based on your one experience, yet I wonder if God told you all those things in one sitting. You still don't want to address why Joseph is making mistakes and God going along with it.

Joseph Smith is not and was never God's sock puppet. Your assertion that he was is completely ridiculous.

I'm not ignoring the mythical Spaulding manuscript. If someone wants to offer any proof it really existed like a draft, a sentence, maybe even a punctuation mark from the text - then we can discuss the issue. Until then, there is nothing to discuss.

Are you aware of the witness statements from it? I doubt it, and you don't show any interest in learning. At least some of us will look at all sides and evaluate them accordingly.

As I said, those witness statements are as convincing as a child's testimony that Santa Claus exists as well. Either come up with supporting evidence that it existed or stop asserting there is any thing valid about this piece of fiction.

[_Themis]

Again, by your standard of what you call evidence, there is evidence that there is really a Santa Claus or tooth fairy. Many children believe have seen Santa at the mall for example. That makes him just as real as your mythical Spaulding manuscript. The problem with your evidence is it is uncorroborated and so there is simply no reason to believe in it (nor address it).

I don't think the evidence is god enough to be conclusive, but it is more then you want to admit, and you don't even know the evidence. A number of people have said he had two stories and that Manuscript found had the Book of Mormon story in it. Somehow I don't think you have had enough time to look at the whole site.

If you want to know that Mormonism is true, that is what you have to do.

And y point is you don't have any experience to know this.

I never stated the Egyptian papyri had a dual meaning, so please get that out of your head. Let me say this again, there was an original story written by Abraham. It no longer exists. The Egyptian papyri was the impetus for Joseph Smith to reveal that account. Please stop saying there are two theories here when I've explained this to you many times and you can't seem to grasp it.

I have seen you bring it up more then once, but if you want to stick with the catalyst theory that is fine. You still don't want to deal with the problems I have brought up about it.

Joseph Smith is not and was never God's sock puppet. Your assertion that he was is completely ridiculous.

This does not address what I said. Joesph was putting text over years to particular hieroglyphs and the facsimiles. This would be dumb for God to allow this, and Joseph is claiming to be communicating with God all the time. It doesn't fit.

As I said, those witness statements are as convincing as a child's testimony that Santa Claus exists as well. Either come up with supporting evidence that it existed or stop asserting there is any thing valid about this piece of fiction.

Which specific witness statements are you referring to?

[_son of Ishmael]

What do you mean that Joseph's movements are documented? By whom? You have no idea what he was doing in his free time...

Joseph spent almost all of his time trying to help support his family. That is known. Working as a farm hand does not leave much time for anything else. They didn't work the puny little 40 hour work-weeks we do now. Personal journals and other documents tell us there was no time for months of research.

Then we have the issue of the 11 witnesses that saw the plates. The list of evidences are many.

I never said that Joseph didn't work hard to support his family. In fact I think one of the reasons he got into the Book of Mormon writing business was to help his family. i just think that he was to busy to write the Book of Mormon is weak. i remember being taught that he spent hours and hours reading the Bible to learn which church was true.

[_son of Ishmael]

Actually we have more than just Joseph's word. You have 11 witnesses, none of which ever denied their testimony of the plates. Some may have thought Joseph was a fallen prophet but none of them ever denied their testimonies.

Read up a little more on the 11 witnesses.

Yep putting too much weight on the statements of the 11 witnesses is putting your trust in the arm of the flesh.

[_Tobin]

Again, by your standard of what you call evidence, there is evidence that there is really a Santa Claus or tooth fairy. Many children believe have seen Santa at the mall for example. That makes him just as real as your mythical Spaulding manuscript. The problem with your evidence is it is uncorroborated and so there is simply no reason to believe in it (nor address it).

I don't think the evidence is god enough to be conclusive, but it is more then you want to admit, and you don't even know the evidence. A number of people have said he had two stories and that Manuscript found had the Book of Mormon story in it. Somehow I don't think you have had enough time to look at the whole site.

And yet he was such an amazing writer there are no drafts, no copies, not one shred of manuscript to prove it ever existed. What did he do? Use a laptop computer to write it I suppose.

If you want to know that Mormonism is true, that is what you have to do.

And y point is you don't have any experience to know this.

Sure I do. I've seen God, God spoke, and the scriptures are true. Read the Moroni's promise sometime. If you want to know, do what he says. If not, just sit around sucking your thumb. I don't care.

I never stated the Egyptian papyri had a dual meaning, so please get that out of your head. Let me say this again, there was an original story written by Abraham. It no longer exists. The Egyptian papyri was the impetus for Joseph Smith to reveal that account. Please stop saying there are two theories here when I've explained this to you many times and you can't seem to grasp it.

I have seen you bring it up more then once, but if you want to stick with the catalyst theory that is fine. You still don't want to deal with the problems I have brought up about it.

Again, you have brought up no problems. The only thing you've ever pointed out is that Joseph Smith was a human being and made bad assumptions. Congrats. Thank you for identifying that Joseph Smith was fallible and human, Captain Obvious.

Joseph Smith is not and was never God's sock puppet. Your assertion that he was is completely ridiculous.

This does not address what I said. Joesph was putting text over years to particular hieroglyphs and the facsimiles. This would be dumb for God to allow this, and Joseph is claiming to be communicating with God all the time. It doesn't fit.

Again, Joseph Smith is a mortal human being and not God's sock puppet. He also used seer stones for years and that was uninspired and finally stopped. He even tried to use them to find treasure. Did that prevent God from using Joseph Smith for his purposes? Obviously not.

As I said, those witness statements are as convincing as a child's testimony that Santa Claus exists as well. Either come up with supporting evidence that it existed or stop asserting there is any thing valid about this piece of fiction.

Which specific witness statements are you referring to?

A number of people have said he had two stories and that Manuscript found had the Book of Mormon story in it.

Clearly, a number of people recalled reading it - yet none of them possessed a copy - a draft - wrote down a few lines from it - nothing - zero - zip?!? Amazing.

[_Rick]

As I've pointed out to Themis, there is no reason to believe Joseph Smith was anything but a con-artist without that affirmation.

I agree, but then I doubt you really did speak to God based on your posts. The evidence clearly shows Joseph was making it up.

The evidence, shows quite the contrary. You just won't accept it.

[_Rick]

Yep putting too much weight on the statements of the 11 witnesses is putting your trust in the arm of the flesh.

I don't. I put weight in only one witness and that one seems to escape you.

[_LittleNipper]

And yet he was such an amazing writer there are no drafts, no copies, not one shred of manuscript to prove it ever existed. What did he do? Use a laptop computer to write it I suppose. I've seen God, God spoke. Read the Moroni's promise sometime. If you want to know, do what he says. If not, just sit around sucking your thumb. I don't care. The only thing you've ever pointed out is that Joseph Smith was a human being and made bad assumptions. Congrats. Thank you for identifying that Joseph Smith was fallible and human, Captain Obvious. Clearly, a number of people recalled reading it - yet none of them possessed a copy - a draft - wrote down a few lines from it - nothing - zero - zip?!? Amazing.
Tobin

One must understand that the time period is the early 19th century in the fringes of a young America. People didn't have computers ---- paper was expensive. Have you ever written a paper for school and read it to some friends? How many would you give a copy to? You are right when you say Mr. Smith was a man who made mistakes. Isn't it possible he was a man capable of stealing, lying, cheating ----- to achieve the desires of his heart? Satan also appears as an angel of light... Just some food for thought.