Great question - "Why are facts Anti-Mormon?"

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_ldsfaqs
_Emeritus
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:41 pm

Re: Great question - "Why are facts Anti-Mormon?"

Post by _ldsfaqs »

Drifting wrote:
ldsfaqs wrote:1. I learned it first reading Church history. But yes, it's been mentioned here and there.
Of course, it wasn't a "trial" it was the equivalent of a pre-trial hearing, and he was acquitted, because most of the testimony from the people he actually helped said HE COULD do what he said. Thus, it's a non-issue, not worthy of mention.

2. What about it? I would recommend you read the full facts of the issue.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon ... _copyright


Sorry, but 'fairmormon' is not a reflection of the official Church's position on anything.
Quote from "lds.org"


Anti-mormons always fascinate me.

First, you accuse us of being ignorant and brainwashed and "can't think for ourselves".
But then when all of our intellectuals and scholars ARE in fact "independent" thinking for ourselves, doing our OWN work supporting the mission of the Church, then our research doesn't actually reflect facts or the Church.

Read the article. It states basically all known facts of the issue, clearly debunking the anti-mormon cherry picks which omits important facts and reason to make a negative and false picture about the issue.
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Great question - "Why are facts Anti-Mormon?"

Post by _Darth J »

ldsfaqs wrote:Of course, it wasn't a "trial" it was the equivalent of a pre-trial hearing, and he was acquitted, because most of the testimony from the people he actually helped said HE COULD do what he said. Thus, it's a non-issue, not worthy of mention.


You cannot be acquitted at a pre-trial hearing. An acquittal is verdict after a trial. By definition.

Joseph Smith was not "acquitted" at the New York glass-looking proceeding. He was bound over. The judge found probable cause to charge him with a crime. You are dead wrong.

Additionally, your assertion means that Joseph Smith would have presented an affirmative defense that he could in fact locate buried treasure using his magic rock. Is that your position, then? Folk magic really works?
_ldsfaqs
_Emeritus
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:41 pm

Re: Great question - "Why are facts Anti-Mormon?"

Post by _ldsfaqs »

Darth J wrote:
ldsfaqs wrote:Of course, it wasn't a "trial" it was the equivalent of a pre-trial hearing, and he was acquitted, because most of the testimony from the people he actually helped said HE COULD do what he said. Thus, it's a non-issue, not worthy of mention.


You cannot be acquitted at a pre-trial hearing. An acquittal is verdict after a trial. By definition.


I know that..... That's why I said "equivalent" to a pre-trial hearing and being acquitted or "let go" without charge.

Joseph Smith was not "acquitted" at the New York glass-looking proceeding. He was bound over. The judge found probable cause to charge him with a crime. You are dead wrong.


If you are talking 1826 he was. http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/L ... king_trial
In fact ALL of his trials and charges resulted in NOT A SINGLE CONVICTION.

Joseph was involved in over 200 proceedings as either defendant, plaintiff, witness or judge. Yes, he did serve as a judge for a while. Brigham Young once stated that Joseph defended himself in 48 cases. This article is great: http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences ... e-in-court

If Joseph was actually a guilty man as you people believe, he would have been convicted at least once in his some maybe 150 times charged with something. Yet not once was he convicted! Doesn't this say something about your kind of people?

Additionally, your assertion means that Joseph Smith would have presented an affirmative defense that he could in fact locate buried treasure using his magic rock. Is that your position, then? Folk magic really works?


My contention is that revelation is real and is a gift of the spirit. Joseph was a young boy starting to discover his prophetic abilities. Naturally as boys do he would seek treasure. Yes, he was successful sometimes, and people testified on his behalf for it also.

"Magic" doesn't work, spiritual gifts do.
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Great question - "Why are facts Anti-Mormon?"

Post by _Darth J »

ldsfaqs wrote:
Darth J wrote:
You cannot be acquitted at a pre-trial hearing. An acquittal is verdict after a trial. By definition.


I know that..... That's why I said "equivalent" to a pre-trial hearing and being acquitted or "let go" without charge.


No. You are completely, totally wrong. A pre-trial dismissal is not equivalent to an acquittal. An acquittal is a judgment on the merits. It means the government has failed to overcome the presumption of innocence, and one's right against double jeopardy attaches at that point. A pre-trial dismissal can be based on numerous different grounds, none of which are a final judgment on the merits of the case.

Joseph Smith was not "acquitted" at the New York glass-looking proceeding. He was bound over. The judge found probable cause to charge him with a crime. You are dead wrong.




No. You're completely wrong. "Guilty" does not mean dismissed. And your FAIR wiki article contradicts itself. It asserts that the proceeding was not a trial, then talks about the "verdict." There is no verdict if there is no trial. Period. It is definitional.

In fact ALL of his trials and charges resulted in NOT A SINGLE CONVICTION.


Tell me about what happened after the Kirtland Safety Society collapsed, Lee.

Joseph was involved in over 200 proceedings as either defendant, plaintiff, witness or judge. Yes, he did serve as a judge for a while. Brigham Young once stated that Joseph defended himself in 48 cases. This article is great: http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences ... e-in-court


You mean to tell me that when Joseph Smith was a witness or a judge, he was never convicted at a trial where he was a non-party?

Wow, that is really something, Lee!

And I am familiar with your article. It is not great. It is BS.

If Joseph was actually a guilty man as you people believe, he would have been convicted at least once in his some maybe 150 times charged with something. Yet not once was he convicted! Doesn't this say something about your kind of people?


No, it says nothing about whatever your fantasize "my kind of people" to be, because I was not involved in any legal proceedings in the early 19th-century adverse to Joseph Smith. You're also equivocating between legal guilt (which you appear unable to distinguish from legal liability) and factual guilt. Joseph Smith was in fact "guilty" of overwhelming instances of conduct that negate the truth claims of Mormonism. Any legal culpability--which he was in reality found to have--is superfluous to that question.

Additionally, your assertion means that Joseph Smith would have presented an affirmative defense that he could in fact locate buried treasure using his magic rock. Is that your position, then? Folk magic really works?


My contention is that revelation is real and is a gift of the spirit. Joseph was a young boy starting to discover his prophetic abilities. Naturally as boys do he would seek treasure. Yes, he was successful sometimes, and people testified on his behalf for it also.

"Magic" doesn't work, spiritual gifts do.


I'm sorry to rain on your parade here, but Josiah Stowell was not competent to testify whether folk magic really worked. He was only competent to testify that he believed it worked, which was exactly the point of charging Joseph Smith with what amounted to fraud. The facts don't support his personal belief, either, since Joseph Smith did not in reality find the buried treasure Stowell hired him to find. But anyway, your answer is yes, you believe that folk magic really works. Your semantics doesn't change what it is you're asserting to be real.
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Great question - "Why are facts Anti-Mormon?"

Post by _Themis »

Darth J wrote:I'm sorry to rain on your parade here, but Josiah Stowell was not competent to testify whether folk magic really worked. He was only competent to testify that he believed it worked, which was exactly the point of charging Joseph Smith with what amounted to fraud. The facts don't support his personal belief, either, since Joseph Smith did not in reality find the buried treasure Stowell hired him to find. But anyway, your answer is yes, you believe that folk magic really works. Your semantics doesn't change what it is you're asserting to be real.


The strategy, and it works a lot of the time, is to distract from the main issue which they cannot defend, and try to get people to focus on whether Joseph Smith was convicted of a crime. It's really irrelevant to the fact Joseph was claiming he could use a seer stone in a hat to find treasure, and was being paid by Stowell to do just that.
42
_Drifting
_Emeritus
Posts: 7306
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:52 am

Re: Great question - "Why are facts Anti-Mormon?"

Post by _Drifting »

ldsfaqs wrote:First, you accuse us of being ignorant and brainwashed and "can't think for ourselves".
But then when all of our intellectuals and scholars ARE in fact "independent" thinking for ourselves, doing our OWN work supporting the mission of the Church, then our research doesn't actually reflect facts or the Church.


Show me where I accused you of 'ignorance', 'being brainwashed' and unable to 'think for yourself'.

Read the article. It states basically all known facts of the issue, clearly debunking the anti-mormon cherry picks which omits important facts and reason to make a negative and false picture about the issue.


I repeat, quote something from lds.org if you are able (I guess that's the point isn't it, you aren't able to do so).
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
_thews
_Emeritus
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Great question - "Why are facts Anti-Mormon?"

Post by _thews »

Themis wrote:
Darth J wrote:I'm sorry to rain on your parade here, but Josiah Stowell was not competent to testify whether folk magic really worked. He was only competent to testify that he believed it worked, which was exactly the point of charging Joseph Smith with what amounted to fraud. The facts don't support his personal belief, either, since Joseph Smith did not in reality find the buried treasure Stowell hired him to find. But anyway, your answer is yes, you believe that folk magic really works. Your semantics doesn't change what it is you're asserting to be real.


The strategy, and it works a lot of the time, is to distract from the main issue which they cannot defend, and try to get people to focus on whether Joseph Smith was convicted of a crime. It's really irrelevant to the fact Joseph was claiming he could use a seer stone in a hat to find treasure, and was being paid by Stowell to do just that.

I agree. What gets lost in this is what Joseph Smith claimed to see through his seer stones, which were evil treasure guardians. These exact same seer stones were used to translate the Book of Mormon. When the Jupiter talisman is painted as something that wasn't documented as being on Joseph Smith when he was killed, so that "proves" it wasn't his, it's part of the tools a seer used and Emma was quoted as saying it was one of his prized possessions. Belief in magic (call it "folk magic" as Mike Reed likes to, in order to water it down), but its intent was to appease evil in search for gold... gold plates.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths
_ldsfaqs
_Emeritus
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:41 pm

Re: Great question - "Why are facts Anti-Mormon?"

Post by _ldsfaqs »

Drifting wrote:Show me where I accused you of 'ignorance', 'being brainwashed' and unable to 'think for yourself'.


Like you all don't say it all the time..... please. I've been you. I know how you people belittle religious people as being "brainwashed".

I repeat, quote something from lds.org if you are able (I guess that's the point isn't it, you aren't able to do so).


Do you know what a logical fallacy and a straw-man is?
Your question is irrelevant because LDS.org does not generally answer challenges especially officially concerning charges and claims against it. It is concerned with spreading the Gospel of Christ, not in gamesmanship, apologetics, historical analysis etc. It leaves such things to the experts of such things.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but we don't need the Church to tell us how to use our minds and think. We can think for ourselves. Our free thinking allows us to freely choose that which is good, right, and true, which is why we are Mormon, despite your moronic lying, misrepresenting, and degrading claims against the Church. If your claims were true, we wouldn't be Mormon. We simply know and understand more than you. It's really that simple.

We know what you say is false because we freely use our own intelligence to compare and look at all the facts. Sorry for you that we don't need the Church to tell us what to think, to judge your lies. Which by the way pretty much debunks the biggest anti-mormon anti-religious claim against us, that is that the Church tells us how to think and what to think about things.
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
_thews
_Emeritus
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Great question - "Why are facts Anti-Mormon?"

Post by _thews »

ldsfaqs wrote:Do you know what a logical fallacy and a straw-man is?

Yes... do you? You use them often as you respond with answers regarding facts with links to where the answer can supposedly be found. Since you're supposedly more intelligent than I am, I assume you can use the quote feature to define your point... if you have one.

ldsfaqs wrote:Your question is irrelevant because LDS.org does not generally answer challenges especially officially concerning charges and claims against it. It is concerned with spreading the Gospel of Christ, not in gamesmanship, apologetics, historical analysis etc. It leaves such things to the experts of such things.

What lds.org does goes beyond answering challenges, as it intentionally removes any factual data one could use to draw a conclusion based on the so-called "anti-Mormon" facts. Type in "trial glass looking" and nothing comes up in the search. Type in "Sally chase" and this is what you get:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/01/take ... ally+chase
To make matters worse, the mob about this time enlisted the help of Willard Chase’s sister Sally in their efforts to obtain the plates. Sally Chase reportedly had a “green glass through which she could see many wonderful things” and had begun to apply her talents on behalf of her brother’s efforts to locate and obtain the plates. Thus, after “but a few days rest,” the Prophet “received another intimation of the approach of a mob and the necessity of removing the record … again from [its] hiding place,” and he dug up the plates. 29

Accounts vary as to what Joseph did next, but it seems that he hid the plates, still housed in the same box, under the floor of a cooper’s shop located just across the road. 30 After a “short time,” Joseph dug them up yet again, removed the plates from their box, reburied the box, and hid the plates—now wrapped in some clothing—in “a quantity of flax” being stored in the shop’s loft. 31 The decoy worked. Following Sally Chase’s directions, the mob that night tore up the floor of the cooper’s shop and smashed the wooden box, but left the plates undisturbed in the loft a few feet above their heads. 32

Do you see any mention of Sally's green glass that was used by Joseph Smith to find his first seer stone? This is a fact, but a fact you can't find on LDS.org, because it's considered "anti" to those who don't research the truth.

Type in "white and delightsome" and this is what you'll find:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/10/the- ... ghtsome%22
The Prophet himself attempted to correct some of these kinds of errors, but his many duties prevented him from completing the project; and even so, some of his corrections seem to have disappeared again in later editions. For example, the 1830 and 1837 printings of the Book of Mormon contained a prophecy that the Lamanites would one day become “a white and delightsome people” (2 Ne. 30:6).

In the 1840 printing, which the Prophet edited, this passage was changed to read “a pure and delightsome people,” but for some reason later printings reverted to the original wording.

This statement is categorically incorrect, as the only pre-1981 edition of the Book of Mormon to read "pure and delightsome" was in 1840 only. They intentionally water this down with the argument "for some reason" without stating the facts. You constantly use "lying" in your parroted responses, but what lds.org is stating is an outright lie which is based on a logical fallacy, as Joseph Smith claimed he couldn't continue "translating" unless the words were correct.

http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm
White and Delightsome or Pure and Delightsome? - A Look at 2 Nephi 30:6

http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/pure-white.html

By Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson

Until 1981 2 Nephi 30:6 in the Book of Mormon taught that dark-skinned Lamanites (Indians) would eventually experience a change in the color of their skin should they embrace the Book of Mormon. This passage of Mormon scripture read:

"...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people."

However, in 1981, the LDS Church decided to change "the most correct book on earth" and switched the word "white" with the word "pure." Some Mormons insist that this was a clarification since the word was never meant to refer to a person with dark skin pigmentation who would magically turn white based upon a conversion to the Mormon gospel; rather, it is claimed that the change referred to a cleaner state of heart. This assumption is definitely not supported in the Book of Mormon since 2 Nephi 5:21 says,

"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, and they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

Furthermore, we find another reference to a change in skin color in 3 Nephi 2:15. This passage reads:

"And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites."

That the context refers to skin color is verified by a number of LDS leaders including Joseph Smith. Mormon author George D. Smith notes that Joseph Smith was given a revelation which foretold of a day when intermarriage with the Lamanites would produce a white and delightsome posterity. George Smith wrote, "This unpublished 17 July 1831 revelation was described three decades later in an 1861 letter from W.W. Phelps to Brigham Young quoting Joseph Smith: `It is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity, may become white, delightsome and just.' In the 8 December 1831 Ohio Star, Ezra Booth wrote of a revelation directing Mormon elders to marry with the `natives'" (Sunstone, November 1993, footnote #5, pg. 52).

Second LDS President Brigham Young stated in 1859, "You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation ...When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people" (Journal of Discourses 7:336).

At the October 1960 LDS Church Conference, Spencer Kimball utilized 2 Nephi 30:6 when he stated how the Indians "are fast becoming a white and delightsome people." He said, "The [Indian] children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation" (Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-3).

During the same message Kimball referred to a 16-year-old Indian girl who was both LDS and "several shades lighter than her parents..." He went on to say, "These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated."

LDS writer George Edward Clark gives a similar account in his book entitled "Why I Believe." On page 129 he wrote, "The writer has been privileged to sit at table with several members of the Catawba tribe of Indians, whose reservation is near the north border of South Carolina. That tribe, or most of its people, are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon). Those Indians, at least as many as I have observed, were white and delightsome, as white and fair as any group of citizens of our country. I know of no prophecy, ancient or modern, that has had a more literal fulfillment" (emphasis his).

It has also been taught in Mormonism that opposite repercussions could result when a white man abandoned his Mormon faith. For instance, the Juvenile Instructor (26:635) reads,

"From this it is very clear that the mark which was set upon the descendants of Cain was a skin of blackness, and there can be no doubt that this was the mark that Cain himself received; in fact, it has been noticed in our day that men who have lost the spirit of the Lord, and from whom his blessings have been withdrawn, have turned dark to such an extend as to excite the comments of all who have known them."

In 1857, Brigham Young declared that apostates would "become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil" (Journal of Discourses 5:332).

Despite the comments from past Mormon leaders, skin color has nothing to do with a person's spirituality. To say 2 Nephi 30:6 was altered merely for clarification and had nothing to do with skin color is without merit. It was a false prophecy, nothing more, nothing less.


http://mormoncurtain.com/topic_whiteanddelightsome.html
In the early pages, Southerton discusses some of the changes in the Book of Mormon, one of which is the change in 2 Nephi 30:6 from "white and delightsome" to "pure and delightsome."

Southerton does not give the date of the change, which I had always thought was 1978 (or soon after). To my surprise, I found the following at http://nowscape.com/mormons1.htm:

"... many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a WHITE and a delightsome people." (1830 Edition, p. 117)

"... PURE and delightsome people." (1840 edition)

"...WHITE and delightsome people." (All later translations until 1981)

"... PURE and delightsome people." (1981 translations , II Nephi 30:6)

Although the Mormon Church will not make available the handwritten manuscript of the Book of Mormon, the R.L.D.S. Church has the handwritten printers copy, which was given to the printer to set the type for the first printing. It too, agrees with the 1830 Edition. It reads "white".

So, someone originally wrote "white" (1830) and then someone changed it to "pure" (1840) and then back to "white" (after 1840) and then finally to "pure" (1981).


Care to answer these other references to skin color ldsfaqs, or will you again give a generic parrot response? How about tucking tail to avoid the question? What you claim to "just know" is based on ignorance of the actual facts.

http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm
Doctrine supported by LDS Scriptures.
2 Nephi 5: 21

'And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.'
Alma 3: 6

'And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.'
2 Nephi 30: 6

"...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people."
NOTE: THE TERM 'WHITE' WAS CHANGED TO 'PURE' IN 1981.
3 Nephi 2:15

"And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites."
Jacob 3: 5, 8-9

5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.

8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.
9 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.
Moses 7:22

And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.


ldsfaqs wrote:Sorry to burst your bubble, but we don't need the Church to tell us how to use our minds and think. We can think for ourselves. Our free thinking allows us to freely choose that which is good, right, and true, which is why we are Mormon, despite your moronic lying, misrepresenting, and degrading claims against the Church. If your claims were true, we wouldn't be Mormon. We simply know and understand more than you. It's really that simple.

You can't answer simple questions and, according to you, it's because you know more than "you" do? Note in the above how you speak for others by constantly using "we" and "our" to imply that all Mormons think the same. It's a collective mindset used in a cult tactic to form a predetermined answer... you aren't thinking for yourself as you incorrectly claim, as you're part of the "we" that regurgitates the response you're supposed to answer with.

ldsfaqs wrote:We know what you say is false because we freely use our own intelligence to compare and look at all the facts. Sorry for you that we don't need the Church to tell us what to think, to judge your lies. Which by the way pretty much debunks the biggest anti-mormon anti-religious claim against us, that is that the Church tells us how to think and what to think about things.

The only way you can "debunk" the facts ldsfaqs is to ignore them and use the spoon-fed altered Mormon history you're supposed to use to "think for yourself" as you align to to the us/we/our mentality... you've negated your own argument that you think for yourself. Care to explain how Mormon doctrine isn't racist? You've dodged the question at least 5 times now, but please use the actual facts and explain how you come to the conclusion it wasn't racist as Joseph Smith translated it.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths
_Robert F Smith
_Emeritus
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:05 pm

Re: Great question - "Why are facts Anti-Mormon?"

Post by _Robert F Smith »

ldsfaqs wrote:Do you know what a logical fallacy and a straw-man is?

thews wrote:Yes... do you? You use them often as you respond with answers regarding facts with links to where the answer can supposedly be found. Since you're supposedly more intelligent than I am, I assume you can use the quote feature to define your point... if you have one.

.....................
[quote]Although the Mormon Church will not make available the handwritten manuscript of the Book of Mormon, the R.L.D.S. Church has the handwritten printers copy, which was given to the printer to set the type for the first printing.[quote]
Here and elsewhere, anti-Mormons deliberately make false statements about the Mormon Church and its history.
For example, the Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon has been available on microfilm to any researcher for over half-a-century, and has been published in transcript form for scholars for a long time (by Royal Skousen).
Post Reply