Contradiction in the Book of Mormon?

[_Themis]

Hello Themis! I suggest that in the future you look at the question you gave me in your last post and then look at my answer.

I suggest you learn to use the quote feature like everyone else does. See, it's not that hard.

[_gdemetz]

What else could I provide this many year later that has not been provided already. There were eleven very creditable witnesses, plus others who added to their testimonies which never significantly changed over the years. If we were talking about some secular historical event other than a religious one, who in their right mind would dispute all that?!?

If it were a secular event then most including LDS would easily dismiss it since to many questions arise of you look at all the evidence available. Try it sometime.

This one Themis. This is what I have tried.

[_Drifting]

What else could I provide this many year later that has not been provided already. There were eleven very creditable witnesses, plus others who added to their testimonies which never significantly changed over the years. If we were talking about some secular historical event other than a religious one, who in their right mind would dispute all that?!?

Actually,

The witnesses were all related to Joseph in either blood or friendship.
There were significant changes to their testimony - 'Author' to 'Translator' for instance and from 'physical eyes' to 'spiritual eyes'.

Imagine a murder witness changing their physical eye witness account to a spiritual eye witness account, what would the jury think?

There were lots of witnesses that came forward to testify that Al Capone had done nothing wrong, many more than 11. They never changed their testimony. I guess that means you must believe Al Capone was not involved in criminal activity...

[_gdemetz]

If you will remember, David Whitmer became an enemy to the church, but he never denied that witness. There were other witnesses also besides the eleven!

[_Drifting]

If you will remember, David Whitmer became an enemy to the church, but he never denied that witness. There were other witnesses also besides the eleven!

I don't believe Joseph ever denied his testimony of Zelph or the Kinderhook plates, does that make them true?


Was Whitmer lying when he stated Joseph translated the Book of Mormon using a rock placed in a hat? If not why doesn't the Church teach its members that this was how it was done rather than exclusively propagating the Urim & Thummim version?

[_Themis]

This one Themis. This is what I have tried.

Tried what exactly? Saying you tried doesn't really communicate what you tried.

[_gdemetz]

Drifting, did you ever consider that he may have been referring to the seer stones? Themis, I gave you the quote already. What did you ask me to try?!?

[_Drifting]

Drifting, did you ever consider that he may have been referring to the seer stones? Themis, I gave you the quote already. What did you ask me to try?!?

Why would I need to consider he meant anything other than what he stated? That's like him saying he had seen the gold plates but meaning that he hadn't really seen the gold plates - and he wouldn't do that....right...?

[_Themis]

Themis, I gave you the quote already. What did you ask me to try?!?

Here is the post you said you tried it.

If it were a secular event then most including LDS would easily dismiss it since to many questions arise of you look at all the evidence available. Try it sometime.

Now you said you tried that so you must have some idea what you tried and I asked you what specifically you tried. Can you state what you tried or were you just saying it to say it.

[_gdemetz]

Drifting, he may have had the seer stones in a hat, so what if he did? Themis, I have tried to examine all of the available evidence.