Contradiction in the Book of Mormon?

[_gdemetz]

I gave it to you already! It's www.BookofMormonEvidence.org!

[_Drifting]

I gave it to you already! It's http://www.BookofMormonEvidence.org!

Which piece of evidence (if younrecognise this question that would be because I asked it of you before and you avoided answering it and ran away) from this website do you think is the most compelling?

[_gdemetz]

I also gave you a quote from an anti source who admitted the signed certificates!

[_Drifting]

I also gave you a quote from an anti source who admitted the signed certificates!

Which piece of evidence from that website is the most compelling in your opinion?

(I'm getting really tired of having to ask you the same questions umpteen times because you avoid answering them. Stop being a coward)

[_gdemetz]

Drifting have you been drinking?! Look at my post again about the signed certificate!

[_Themis]

Drifting have you been drinking?! Look at my post again about the signed certificate!

I assume this is the quote you are talking about.

"The plates from which Smith, the author translates his book are said to be in his possession. Ten persons say they have seen them and hefted them. Three declare that an angel of God appeared to them and showed them to them, and told them that God had given Smith power to be able to read them, understand them, and translate them. THE NAMES OF THOSE PERSONS ARE SIGNED TO THE CERTIFICATES IN THE BOOK."

I have asked you more then once to provide sources of who said this, when, and where they got there information. Did this person believe they were signed because they saw there signatures or where they just told what other people believed. Did they see the same copy I have seen which has the signatures all in the same handwriting and mistakenly thought they represented their signatures. In fact he does say in the book which leads me to think he may have seen that copy. I know he got the number wrong.http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperDetails/the-testimony-of-eight-witnesses-circa-june%E2%80%93august-1829?p=1 You can hopefully see the problems here.

Also since you are a little slow sometimes, I will state again that I have never said there was not a signed document, only that we don't have good evidence that shows there ever was one.

Also you really need to find a good website then the one you are using. Maybe even more important now that you have learned to use the link feature is to now start linking directly to the webpage you are sourcing.

[_gdemetz]

Themis, I really don't understand what your problem is. I looked at the site you just gave, and, although I can not see the document clearly, it appears to me that that is the very certificate that was signed by the eight witnesses! Is it not?!?

[_Drifting]

Themis, I really don't understand what your problem is. I looked at the site you just gave, and, although I can not see the document clearly, it appears to me that that is the very certificate that was signed by the eight witnesses! Is it not?!?

Now if you put your spectacles on you may just be able to notice that the 'signatures' are all written in exactly the same handwriting which coincidently is exactly the same handwrting as the main body of the text. So clearly the work of a single individual.

You lose.




Again....

[_Themis]

Themis, I really don't understand what your problem is. I looked at the site you just gave, and, although I can not see the document clearly, it appears to me that that is the very certificate that was signed by the eight witnesses! Is it not?!?

The problem is you want everyone to accept that there is a signed document based on how you interpret some statement you lovingly consider to be written by some anti. I have asked you multiple times who said it, when they said it, and where did they get their information. Did they see this same witnesses statement I linked you and thought it represented their signatures like you have incorrectly done. I am trying to determine the value of the statement you reference but you wont provide any information to go on. In the end we still don't have good evidence there ever was a signed document. Certainly I think Joseph would have been happy for people to think so and may have encouraged any rumors.

[_gdemetz]

To me, it looks like it's only a draft since who would use a document with scratched out words as a final document?!? Although, the signature has a very good resemblance to a receipt that Jacob Whitmer singned in 1856. Anyhyow, it does nothing to change the fact that the witnesses over the years testified to their signing a document concerning the truthfullness of the plates!!!