Book of Mormon a Stolen Novel?

[_SteelHead]

Tobin,
It intrigues me that you are so willing to throw.away the method by which the Book of Abraham is reported to have been produced while still accepting the end product. By your theory, Joseph wasn't prophet enough to discern that the papyrus had nothing to do with Abraham, but he still produced Abraham's writings.

[_Tobin]

Tobin, It intrigues me that you are so willing to throw.away the method by which the Book of Abraham is reported to have been produced while still accepting the end product. By your theory, Joseph wasn't prophet enough to discern that the papyrus had nothing to do with Abraham, but he still produced Abraham's writings.

Joseph Smith was a flawed human being that believed, taught, and did a lot of questionable things. He wasn't perfect and most of the criticisms of Joseph Smith are aimed purely at that fact. I make a distinction between the man and the inspired work he did.

[_Quasimodo]

Joseph Smith was a flawed human being that believed, taught, and did a lot of questionable things. He wasn't perfect and most of the criticisms of Joseph Smith are aimed purely at that fact. I make a distinction between the man and the inspired work he did.

Hi Tobin,

We only have Joe's word that his work was inspired. Since, as you said, that he did a lot of questionable things and was caught in many lies, why should any of us (you included) believe him?

His actions and statements point heavily to a sociopath. Promoting a new religion with him as the prophet would only be modus operandi for a sociopath. Why waste your time defending this rascal?

[_Rick]

Tobin, It intrigues me that you are so willing to throw.away the method by which the Book of Abraham is reported to have been produced while still accepting the end product. By your theory, Joseph wasn't prophet enough to discern that the papyrus had nothing to do with Abraham, but he still produced Abraham's writings.

Joseph Smith was a flawed human being that believed, taught, and did a lot of questionable things. He wasn't perfect and most of the criticisms of Joseph Smith are aimed purely at that fact. I make a distinction between the man and the inspired work he did.

I don't understand why these people think a prophet has to be perfect. Noah was not perfect, neither was Moses, or Abraham, or Job, etc. But they sure want Joseph Smith to be perfect or they claim he wasn't a prophet. Theses seem like the types of people that would have a problem with Jesus not healing all the lepers everywhere instead of just the ones he touched.

[_Rick]

Joseph Smith was a flawed human being that believed, taught, and did a lot of questionable things. He wasn't perfect and most of the criticisms of Joseph Smith are aimed purely at that fact. I make a distinction between the man and the inspired work he did.

Hi Tobin,

We only have Joe's word that his work was inspired. Since, as you said, that he did a lot of questionable things and was caught in many lies, why should any of us (you included) believe him?

His actions and statements point heavily to a sociopath. Promoting a new religion with him as the prophet would only be modus operandi for a sociopath. Why waste your time defending this rascal?

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.

[_Tobin]

Joseph Smith was a flawed human being that believed, taught, and did a lot of questionable things. He wasn't perfect and most of the criticisms of Joseph Smith are aimed purely at that fact. I make a distinction between the man and the inspired work he did.

Hi Tobin,

We only have Joe's word that his work was inspired. Since, as you said, that he did a lot of questionable things and was caught in many lies, why should any of us (you included) believe him?

His actions and statements point heavily to a sociopath. Promoting a new religion with him as the prophet would only be modus operandi for a sociopath. Why waste your time defending this rascal?

You are correct. There is no reason to believe Joseph Smith based on his word alone (or the 11 other witnesses to the Book of Mormon). Any reasonable person should immediately question their motives in fact. The only saving grace for Mormonism is a plea to God - and God literally must intervene to demonstrate it is true. As I've stated to Kish several times, it seems that this is exactly the situation God intended (if it is true) since all of Mormonism is based on these improbable and preposterous claims of people seeing and speaking with God, angels, Gold Books, and the list goes on.

Obviously, if you have no experience with God as a result of this experiment, the whole thing is a fraud. Laugh it off and find something fullfilling. However, if you do have a conviction it is true as a result of an experience with God, then be true to that experience and live a good life and state the truth as best you can and with as much earnest as you are able to muster.

[_Quasimodo]

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.

[_Themis]

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

[_Themis]

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.

[_Themis]

Joseph Smith was a flawed human being that believed, taught, and did a lot of questionable things. He wasn't perfect and most of the criticisms of Joseph Smith are aimed purely at that fact. I make a distinction between the man and the inspired work he did.

I don't understand why these people think a prophet has to be perfect. Noah was not perfect, neither was Moses, or Abraham, or Job, etc. But they sure want Joseph Smith to be perfect or they claim he wasn't a prophet. Theses seem like the types of people that would have a problem with Jesus not healing all the lepers everywhere instead of just the ones he touched.

I don't know anyone who claims Joseph needs to be perfect or even close to it. Many like Tobin don't want to examine what they think are his mistakes and see if it makes sense with the catalyst theory.