Book of Mormon a Stolen Novel?

[_Themis]

[Joseph Smith never writes about them and neither does SR.

They wouldn't if they were stealing his story to help make the Book of Mormon.

[_Tobin]

...

Let's deal with Themis here, since he's unable to write one single post that is easy to reply to:
Themis contention 1: There is evidence of the mythical spaulding manuscript.
What evidence? There isn't a draft, a sentence, nothing!!! It is made up out of thin air.
Themis contention 2: Moroni's challenge isn't valid - especially in my case since I wasn't asking God about anything (nor expecting God)
The point of Moroni's challenge is to talk to God about the Book of Mormon. However, that is not the only way to speak with God. Despite Themis's assertion, God is NOT a one trick pony.
Themis contention 3: That the Egyptians would not have used the Abraham text (if it existed).
I agree. Since Themis was unable to grasp what I said, and actually tried to counter my point by agreeing with me. I'll accept his disagreeing agreement.
Themis contention 4: That Joseph Smith could read and translate Egyptian Hieroglyphics, but he really couldn't.
He doesn't actually believe Joseph Smith could translate Egyptian Hieroglyphics, yet continually states Joseph Smith did translate them. He's just contradicting himself and is completely mixed up.

So in summary, Themis isn't cogent nor credible. He tries to have things both ways, disagrees with himself, and agrees with me while disagreeing. He doesn't believe in the gold plates, yet firmly believes in a mythical spaulding manuscript. That is definitely the pot calling the kettle black.

[_MCB]

If I were a smilie artist, I would make a circle of ROFLMAO's. This is so funny, and some of the posters don't even realize it.

[_Themis]

Let's deal with Themis here, since he's unable to write one single post that is easy to reply to:
Themis contention 1: There is evidence of the mythical spaulding manuscript.
What evidence? There isn't a draft, a sentence, nothing!!! It is made up out of thin air.

Maybe if you spent some time learning about it. There are a number of statements by people who knew him including his daughter who claim two stories. Again if you are more serious then wanting to just assert it ludicrous let me know and start participating in the thread in a mature manner.

Themis contention 2: Moroni's challenge isn't valid - especially in my case since I wasn't asking God about anything (nor expecting God)
The point of Moroni's challenge is to talk to God about the Book of Mormon. However, that is not the only way to speak with God. Despite Themis's assertion, God is NOT a one trick pony.

The idea you keep saying is to go ask God. The problem is he never showed up for you or others who have sought him. You believe he did when you were not seeking God at all. You cannot even see the inconsistency here.

Themis contention 3: That the Egyptians would not have used the Abraham text (if it existed).
I agree. Since Themis was unable to grasp what I said, and actually tried to counter my point by agreeing with me. I'll accept his disagreeing agreement.

Why if you agree do you say that they did take what he wrote and put there own meanings to it to get the papyri presented to Joseph. You really are the problem. You are so inconsistent and keep bouncing around from position to position.

Themis contention 4: That Joseph Smith could read and translate Egyptian Hieroglyphics, but he really couldn't.
He doesn't actually believe Joseph Smith could translate Egyptian Hieroglyphics, yet continually states Joseph Smith did translate them. He's just contradicting himself and is completely mixed up.

Maybe try reading what I say for comprehension. Joseph claimed to be able to, and provided claimed translations for particular parts of the papyri, which creates many problems with your catalyst theory. Learn to read for comprehension so that you might actually be able to know what a person's position is. I have never said Joseph could actually translate ancient languages. The evidence obviously shows he can't. It's stupid in the extreme to even suggest I have. How about backing up that, but oh wait you can't because it's not there. Try being more honest.

So in summary, Themis isn't cogent nor credible. He tries to have things both ways, disagrees with himself, and agrees with me while disagreeing. He doesn't believe in the gold plates, yet firmly believes in a mythical spaulding manuscript. That is definitely the pot calling the kettle black.

Again, try being honest. You are misrepresenting what I have said.

[_Tobin]

Let's deal with Themis here, since he's unable to write one single post that is easy to reply to:
Themis contention 1: There is evidence of the mythical spaulding manuscript.
What evidence? There isn't a draft, a sentence, nothing!!! It is made up out of thin air.

Maybe if you spent some time learning about it. There are a number of statements by people who knew him including his daughter who claim two stories. Again if you are more serious then wanting to just assert it ludicrous let me know and start participating in the thread in a mature manner.

Wow. You bounce from one dizzying standard to another. As I've also noted, you'll believe in the tooth fairy only so long as it helps you in your crusade to disprove Mormonism. Isn't it extremely interesting that you don't believe the 12 witnesses of the Book of Mormon when you'll believe the witnesses to the mythical spaulding manuscript? Using your own standard of proof, the 12 witnesses to the Gold Plates establishes the source of the Book of Mormon without a doubt.

Themis contention 2: Moroni's challenge isn't valid - especially in my case since I wasn't asking God about anything (nor expecting God) The point of Moroni's challenge is to talk to God about the Book of Mormon. However, that is not the only way to speak with God. Despite Themis's assertion, God is NOT a one trick pony.

The idea you keep saying is to go ask God. The problem is he never showed up for you or others who have sought him. You believe he did when you were not seeking God at all. You cannot even see the inconsistency here.

Not really. I know there is a God, so it is very consistent to ask you to speak with him. How and when God chooses to speak with you is entirely between you and God. I really think it demonstrates your inadequate understanding of the the scriptures to not realize God has appeared to people that weren't necessarily seeking him (Alma and Saul come immediately to mind).

Themis contention 3: That the Egyptians would not have used the Abraham text (if it existed).
I agree. Since Themis was unable to grasp what I said, and actually tried to counter my point by agreeing with me. I'll accept his disagreeing agreement.

Why if you agree do you say that they did take what he wrote and put there own meanings to it to get the papyri presented to Joseph. You really are the problem. You are so inconsistent and keep bouncing around from position to position.

Not really. You agree the papyri are Egyptian and clearly don't contain the Book of Abraham. So, if the Book of Abraham is a true record, then - as you have agreed - the papyri wouldn't contain it and it would have been lost long ago. I really don't understand why you talk out both sides of your mouth here. You acknowledge the fact that the papyri are Egyptian, but fail to understand how an original record of Abraham must have existed if the Book of Abraham is true.

Themis contention 4: That Joseph Smith could read and translate Egyptian Hieroglyphics, but he really couldn't. He doesn't actually believe Joseph Smith could translate Egyptian Hieroglyphics, yet continually states Joseph Smith did translate them. He's just contradicting himself and is completely mixed up.

Maybe try reading what I say for comprehension. Joseph claimed to be able to, and provided claimed translations for particular parts of the papyri, which creates many problems with your catalyst theory. Learn to read for comprehension so that you might actually be able to know what a person's position is. I have never said Joseph could actually translate ancient languages. The evidence obviously shows he can't. It's stupid in the extreme to even suggest I have. How about backing up that, but oh wait you can't because it's not there. Try being more honest.

Of course it is stupid to assume Joseph Smith understood Egyptian Hieroglyphics. Yet, you insist Mormons, must assume that. Why? Joseph Smith didn't understand reformed Egyptian when translating the Book of Mormon. He needed seer stones to translate it. But then you make the amazing leap of logic that Joseph Smith must have magically learned Egyptian Hieroglyphics and used that to translate inorder to produce the Book of Abraham. That is ridiculous.

So in summary, Themis isn't cogent nor credible. He tries to have things both ways, disagrees with himself, and agrees with me while disagreeing. He doesn't believe in the gold plates, yet firmly believes in a mythical spaulding manuscript. That is definitely the pot calling the kettle black.

Again, try being honest. You are misrepresenting what I have said.

No. That is very accurate. You careen from ridiculous assertion to ridiculous assertion in a crusade against Mormonism. Often, you employ exactly the same beliefs that Mormons have about the gold plates and Book of Mormon, but instead you believe in a mythical spaulding manuscript and its eye witnesses. As I've said, you'll believe, say, and do anything in your crusade to prove that Mormonism is false - as long as it helps you of course.

[_Themis]

Wow. You bounce from one dizzying standard to another. As I've also noted, you'll believe in the tooth fairy only so long as it helps you in your crusade to disprove Mormonism. Isn't it extremely interesting that you don't believe the 12 witnesses of the Book of Mormon when you'll believe the witnesses to the mythical spaulding manuscript? Using your own standard of proof, the 12 witnesses to the Gold Plates establishes the source of the Book of Mormon without a doubt.

Do you really think you are winning credibility back by continuing these lies? I am not going to repeat what I said about the spalding manuscripts since I have been clear and you still lie about my position. Why is it that you don't have a problem with missing plates but you do with a missing manuscript. Both have witnesses. If Joseph did use a manuscript from Spalding do you think they would not have destroyed it? I'm not sold that Joseph did use any manuscript even if you continue to lie that I am.

Not really. I know there is a God, so it is very consistent to ask you to speak with him. How and when God chooses to speak with you is entirely between you and God. I really think it demonstrates your inadequate understanding of the the scriptures to not realize God has appeared to people that weren't necessarily seeking him (Alma and Saul come immediately to mind).

It still doesn't change the fact you have never succeeded in seeking God and him showing up, so It is hypocritical to say others should seek God and he will show up, when you have no real world experience that he will.

Not really. You agree the papyri are Egyptian and clearly don't contain the Book of Abraham. So, if the Book of Abraham is a true record, then - as you have agreed - the papyri wouldn't contain it and it would have been lost long ago. I really don't understand why you talk out both sides of your mouth here. You acknowledge the fact that the papyri are Egyptian, but fail to understand how an original record of Abraham must have existed if the Book of Abraham is true.

I have been very consistent here. It's is a fraud. You bounce back between catalyst and dual meaning.You still don't address the problems with either of them, but I wont get into it since this thread is about the spalding theory.

Of course it is stupid to assume Joseph Smith understood Egyptian Hieroglyphics. Yet, you insist Mormons, must assume that. Why? Joseph Smith didn't understand reformed Egyptian when translating the Book of Mormon. He needed seer stones to translate it. But then you make the amazing leap of logic that Joseph Smith must have magically learned Egyptian Hieroglyphics and used that to translate inorder to produce the Book of Abraham. That is ridiculous.

You really don't understand at all. Joseph claimed to and provided text for each hieroglyphs and specific parts of the facsimiles. He made it up when asked to translate the Greek document and got caught. The seer stone was just a prop right from the beginning with his treasure digging.

No. That is very accurate. You careen from ridiculous assertion to ridiculous assertion in a crusade against Mormonism. Often, you employ exactly the same beliefs that Mormons have about the gold plates and Book of Mormon, but instead you believe in a mythical spaulding manuscript and its eye witnesses. As I've said, you'll believe, say, and do anything in your crusade to prove that Mormonism is false - as long as it helps you of course.

Again with misrepresenting what I have said. I have shown this with multiple examples in this thread alone. Why continue to lie?

[_LittleNipper]

My intent was never to humiliate Mormons or make them look silly. My intent is to get people, who accept Mormonism or any set of "religious" rules, to investigate what they actually place their faith in and why. I fully believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior/God. And it is his love and sacrafice that saves. It isn't going to the "correct" temple, wearing special underwear, or even doing kind things in the hope of getting rewards. It is trusting in God. A Christian will seek others who believe and such is right in order for christians to mature in their faith, and uplift each other in the Lord. I do believe there is some good to be found in the Book of Mormon; however, that good is where it fully transcribes actual verses from the Bible, and not where it "adds" a novel tale of murder, deception, and thievery drapped in the placing America in the spotlight. I am concerned for people who may become embittered, as they begin to imagine that the Bible is as the Book of Mormon ---- simply a made up tale. I am also concerned that some people are fully trusting in correct churches, the validity of ritual, friends, family, and false doctrine&prophets-------------- and not actually knowing Christ in truth.

[_Tobin]

Wow. You bounce from one dizzying standard to another. As I've also noted, you'll believe in the tooth fairy only so long as it helps you in your crusade to disprove Mormonism. Isn't it extremely interesting that you don't believe the 12 witnesses of the Book of Mormon when you'll believe the witnesses to the mythical spaulding manuscript? Using your own standard of proof, the 12 witnesses to the Gold Plates establishes the source of the Book of Mormon without a doubt.

Do you really think you are winning credibility back by continuing these lies? I am not going to repeat what I said about the spalding manuscripts since I have been clear and you still lie about my position. Why is it that you don't have a problem with missing plates but you do with a missing manuscript. Both have witnesses. If Joseph did use a manuscript from Spalding do you think they would not have destroyed it? I'm not sold that Joseph did use any manuscript even if you continue to lie that I am.

What lies exactly? It seems to me you are backing off the view that the mythical Spaulding manuscript existed. Let me know if you consider that a lie too.

Not really. I know there is a God, so it is very consistent to ask you to speak with him. How and when God chooses to speak with you is entirely between you and God. I really think it demonstrates your inadequate understanding of the the scriptures to not realize God has appeared to people that weren't necessarily seeking him (Alma and Saul come immediately to mind).

It still doesn't change the fact you have never succeeded in seeking God and him showing up, so It is hypocritical to say others should seek God and he will show up, when you have no real world experience that he will.

Earth to Themis. I've seen and experienced God, so I know the scriptures are true. God really exists. You should give it a try sometime.

Not really. You agree the papyri are Egyptian and clearly don't contain the Book of Abraham. So, if the Book of Abraham is a true record, then - as you have agreed - the papyri wouldn't contain it and it would have been lost long ago. I really don't understand why you talk out both sides of your mouth here. You acknowledge the fact that the papyri are Egyptian, but fail to understand how an original record of Abraham must have existed if the Book of Abraham is true.

I have been very consistent here. It's is a fraud. You bounce back between catalyst and dual meaning.You still don't address the problems with either of them, but I wont get into it since this thread is about the spalding theory.

No, I'm being very consistent. You just fail over and over to grasp what I'm saying because you want to be disagreeable. The only difference between our views is that I believe Abraham existed, wrote an account, and that Joseph Smith revealed that account.

Of course it is stupid to assume Joseph Smith understood Egyptian Hieroglyphics. Yet, you insist Mormons, must assume that. Why? Joseph Smith didn't understand reformed Egyptian when translating the Book of Mormon. He needed seer stones to translate it. But then you make the amazing leap of logic that Joseph Smith must have magically learned Egyptian Hieroglyphics and used that to translate inorder to produce the Book of Abraham. That is ridiculous.

You really don't understand at all. Joseph claimed to and provided text for each hieroglyphs and specific parts of the facsimiles. He made it up when asked to translate the Greek document and got caught. The seer stone was just a prop right from the beginning with his treasure digging.

Again, the assumption that Joseph Smith claimed to know Egyptain Hieroglyphics is just false. He was trying to figure it out until his death. You really have an inability to distinguish between Joseph Smith the man, his speculations and flaws from true gospel and divine inspiration. No wonder you left Mormonism. You actually need some level of common sense to function as a Mormon.

No. That is very accurate. You careen from ridiculous assertion to ridiculous assertion in a crusade against Mormonism. Often, you employ exactly the same beliefs that Mormons have about the gold plates and Book of Mormon, but instead you believe in a mythical spaulding manuscript and its eye witnesses. As I've said, you'll believe, say, and do anything in your crusade to prove that Mormonism is false - as long as it helps you of course.

Again with misrepresenting what I have said. I have shown this with multiple examples in this thread alone. Why continue to lie?

Again, I feel this is a completely accurate view of how you approach Mormonism. You delight in any belief, no matter how ridiculous, that reinforces your paradigm that Mormonism is false.

[Guest]

I have never read the Book of Abraham. Is it now believed to be a total fake, even by Mormons? I for one still believe that Joseph Smith (who also ran for President of the United States) was of the sort to do most anything to get a name for himself and collect followers. It seems to be in his very nature. And the Spaulding theory seems very possible given the testimony of those closest to Spaulding.

[_Tobin]

I have never read the Book of Abraham. Is it now believed to be a total fake, even by Mormons?

No. We are discussing the origins and the misconceptions people have about it. Themis has some very mistaken views I'm attempting to correct.