Evidence for God from Science

Sargon we've been down this road many many times before.. If you are saying now that these battles took place in Meso-America... Where is your archaeological proof?? Also why do your Mormon elders say it happened in Northern America?

We could launch into a discussion of Meso-American archaeology, but I am not prepared for it right now, and it is quite off the topic.

Sargon did you even read what I wrote? I went through great lengths to highlight the similarities..

Again here is the official view of the LDS church regarding the story of Zelp and Joseph Smith.. They claim that Joesph examined a skeleton and that he identified the remains as the warrior called Zelph in June 3 1834..

Daily Events in the Life of Joseph Smith

June 3 1834— Illinois River, Illinois. While the Zion's Camp marchers were encamped on the banks of the Illinois River, Joseph Smith visited a burial mound and examined a skeleton. He identified the man as a warrior who had been called Zelph. History of the Church, 2:79—80

(LDS link)

Gman, I am really struggling here with you. I feel that I have been very clear in my presentation, yet you simply are not understanding. I pray for patience. I am not denying that these events happened. This website is you have cited from is very accurate. I have confirmed the truth of the event over and over. What we are now determining, is not whether the event took place, but what were the details of the event.

Now here is the Zelph account itself.. Notice the words "I". Who do you think the "I" is here according to the LDS church? Who called him Zelph according to the LDS church??

So if Joseph didn't write it then who did?? Show us your proof that it was someone else then...

I don't know what I could have done to explain this better. I have already shown you 2 sources confirming how and why this was written, and that Joseph Smith did not write this. What else can I do Gman? Fortigurn, if you have understood could you please help Gman? In my last post, and the one before that I provided clear descriptions of the history of this specific account. Please don't make me do it again.

Oh, so now you are saying that this is his personal conclusion.. But he didn't write it.. Sargon.. I have no clue what you are talking about sometimes..

I know. It is killing me. I really want you to understand.

Its sad to see that you have to lie about the accounts now.. Sargon, we have witnesses that say that Joseph was there telling them about the Zelph account.. Remember??

Gman, please do not call me a liar. I have not lied about anything. Of course I remember, I am the one who provided you with a thorough analysis of each account. Did you read my previous post? The event happened Gman, I know that. It just didn't happen the way you believe it did.

Yes he hated writing and keeping records so much that his pen produced the book called "The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith."

A very minor point of dispute that has no bearing on the outcome of this discussion. Joseph wrote many letters, and sermons. But he did not like keeping records. Historians know this, and I will not even bother to try and prove it, because it is not important.

What did you think of the 5 witness accounts that I provided? Did you read them? Did you find my conclusions accurate? If not, why? What are your disagreements with it? Could you address the work I have done instead of simply ignoring it and repeating the same already answered questions?? I hope you will, otherwise it simply looks like you are being uncooperative.

Sargon

Sargon wrote:Are you guys interested in staying on topic with the Zelph thing here??

Well of course, but I'd like these other issues to be dealt with.

There are major differences between these events. On the one hand, we have the same story being told by the main character, with the details differing. On the other hand, we have the same story being told by a bunch of different sources, not including the main character, with the details differing.

No, on the one hand we have several different versions of the 'First Vision', some told by Smith, some recorded by other people telling us what Smith apparently told them, and some told by people who were not Smith.

On the other hand, we have the same story being told by a number of different sources, with the same key details.

In the case of the Zelph story, all we have are journal entries and memories of different people who witnessed the event. These accounts are available on the web, and they each tell a slightly different story. They all agree on a few facts however:
1) Joseph Smith saw some ancient bones
2) Joseph Smith prophesied about the bones
3) Joseph Smith said his name was Zelph, and that he was a lamanite warrior.
4) Zelph was killed in battle.

That's a significant level of shared explicit detail.

What they do not agree on, are the details. They do not agree that it was the last battle between the lamanites and nephites. They do not agree on who it was that was known from the east to the rockies, Zelph or Onandagus.

It is disingenuous for you to say they 'do not agree' on these points. What you really mean is that they don't all include all of these details. They don't contradict each other on these points, which is what would be required for you to say that they disagree.

The account you have shown us does include all these details, but it not an account written by Joseph Smith. As I have repeatedly said, it was compiled by Willard Richards.

Yes, and I'm prepared to accept that it was compiled by Richards. But you've given me no reason to believe it's inaccurate.

You see, Willard Richards removed the exact statements that you are relying on for your point from his original record. This was probably done at the behest of the prophet, or someone else helping to edit the book.

Whether or not that's true (and it's really an ad hoc rationalization), the fact is that they were in his original manuscript, they are corroborated by other sources, and they ended up in the 'official' version of the history.

I cannot explain this better then Dr. Godfrey:

If the history of the church were to be revised today using modern historical standards, readers would be informed that Joseph Smith wrote nothing about the discovery of Zelph, and that the account of uncovering the skeleton in Pike County is based on the diaries of seven members of Zion's Camp, some of which were written long after the event took place. We would be assured that the members of Zion's Camp dug up a skeleton near the Illinois River in early June 1834. Equally sure is that Joseph Smith made statements about the deceased person and his historical setting. We would learn that it is unclear which statements attributed to him derived from his vision, as opposed to being implied or surmised either by him or by others. Nothing in the diaries suggests that the mound itself was discovered by revelation.

Furthermore, readers would be told that most sources agree that Zelph was a white Lamanite who fought under a leader named Onandagus (variously spelled). Beyond that, what Joseph said to his men is not entirely clear, judging by the variations in the available sources. The date of the man Zelph, too, remains unclear. Expressions such as "great struggles among the Lamanites," if accurately reported, could refer to a period long after the close of the Book of Mormon narrative, as well as to the fourth century AD. None of the sources before the Willard Richards composition, however, actually say that Zelph died in battle with the Nephites, only that he died "in battle" when the otherwise unidentified people of Onandagus were engaged in great wars "among the Lamanites."

In other words, the historical record would be altered to suit current LDS beliefs. That's quite an admission.

It is simply illogical to believe that Joseph Smith believed that Zelph was killed in the final struggle between the Lamanites and Nephites.

Why?

Joseph Smith's opinion of where the BoM events took place is still in dispute...

Among Internet Mormons.

It is sometimes fortunate that we have such ardent critics of the church. They provide us with hard to get information. Would you be willing to show me this source? That is, unless you have found this information by an LDS source, then I am equally eager to know of it.

Look here. That's an official LDS site. Look at the introduction:

Joseph Smith—History. Excerpts from Joseph Smith's official testimony and history, which he prepared in 1838, and which was published serially in the Times and Seasons in Nauvoo, Illinois, beginning on March 15, 1842. See History of the Church, vol. 1, pp. 1-44, for the complete account.

What does the part in bold say?

It was written with the intent of sounding like Joseph Smith, but it was written by scribes.

Why was it written with the intent of sounding like Joseph Smith? Were people told it wasn't written by Joseph Smith?

I do not recall claiming that it was a standard historical style of the day, but merely it was a style that they employed, that we do not use today.

I'm still waiting for evidence for this claim.

Sargon wrote:I don't know what I could have done to explain this better. I have already shown you 2 sources confirming how and why this was written, and that Joseph Smith did not write this. What else can I do Gman? Fortigurn, if you have understood could you please help Gman? In my last post, and the one before that I provided clear descriptions of the history of this specific account. Please don't make me do it again.

Yes, I agree you've been very clear in giving your view of the history, but I can understand if Gman is skeptical. You haven't proven reliable on LDS history in the past, and I'm sure Gman finds it suspicious that a history allegedly written by Smith and presented as having been written by Smith for decade after decade, is now being presented by apologists in a tight spot as not having been written by Smith.

Damage control by Sargon...

I'm sorry to do this to you Sargon, but your postings have ultimately destroyed the credibility of the Book of Mormon.. I believe I have enough evidence from you now to make my point with you.. By your own postings you have already agreed with me that Joseph stole the plot from Spalding's manuscript.

Let me explain... I will simplify this for you..

1) All along I have been stating to you that Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon stole the Spalding manuscript called "Manuscript Found."

2) I then went into great detail to show how the Spalding account attributed to the mounds in Northern America in two ways.

A) One account is attributing the mounds to burial mounds - Spalding manuscript, p. 122.
B) The other account is attributing the mounds to fortifications - Spalding manuscript, p. 74

3) I then showed you in great detail how the Book of Mormon attributed to the mounds in Northern America in two ways.

A) One account is attributing the mounds to burial mounds - Alma 16:11
B) The other account is attributing the mounds to fortifications - Alma 50:1-6, Alma 53:3-7

4) I then showed you in great detail how the Zelph story attributed to the mounds in a Northern American battle to a burial just like the Spalding manuscript. And unfortunately you agreed to this statement in great detail.

Quote Sargon:

Feel free to check up on my work.

Reuben Mcbride Journal
-Zelph
-white lamanite
-warrior
-under the prophet Omandagus (spelling of journal entry)
-killed in battle
-Zelph known from atlantic to the Rocky mountains

Moses Martin Journal-1834
-bones of a mighty prophet
-died in "some great battle"

Wilford Woodruff journal -1834
-Zelph
-while lamanite
-warrior under a great prophet
-prophet known from hill cumorah to rocky mountains

Wilford Woodruff later made a second version in his journal
adding these details:
-Onendagus
-An unclear reference to the East sea

Levi Hancock, Diary of -1834
-Zelf (spelling of journal)
-white lamanite
-fought for freedom with people of Onendagus
-Onendagus was a good king

Apparenly Levi made a later Journal 4 years later, retelling the event, with essentially no changes, except for saying that Zelph's name might have been Telf.

Heber C. Kimball- no date provided
-Zelph
-lamanite officer
-fell in last destruction among the lamanites

What they do not agree on, are the details.

Sargon wrote:What did you think of the 5 witness accounts that I provided? Did you read them? Did you find my conclusions accurate? If not, why? What are your disagreements with it? Could you address the work I have done instead of simply ignoring it and repeating the same already answered questions?? I hope you will, otherwise it simply looks like you are being uncooperative.

And what you may ask is the point of this? This doesn't hurt the Spalding account's credibility or parallels to the BoM at all.. Sargon what you have proven here is the following.

A) There was a skeleton found on top of a mound in North America. (maybe in the state of Illinios or New York, who knows).
B) His name was Zelph.
C) He was a white lamanite warrior or officer.
D) He was killed in a battle.
E) At least 5 witnesses agreed to this and wrote in their journals about the event.

Fact 1: It makes ABSOLUTELY no difference who WROTE the original statement about Zelph. Even though more of the proof points to Joseph.

Fact 2: It makes ABSOLUTELY no difference who FOUGHT in the battle in the original statement about Zelph. The point here is that a battle was fought..

Fact 3: In order for the Zelph accounts to fit with the Spalding accounts we only need to prove A, D and E. And unfortunately for you, you have already given that to us plus more..

In summary, Zelph was a white lamanite warrior who was killed in a battle, whose skeleton was found on top of a mound in Northern America by over 5 witnesses. And one of them was Joseph Smith himself... And this fact is undebatable because they were under the influence of the Spirit of the Almighty...

And how does this fit into the topic "Joseph Smith and the translation of the gold plates?"

As Forigurn stated, the evidence suggests so far is that the Book of Mormon was the work of men. You see Sargon, there were no gold plates... The BoM was the work of men. And the plot of the BoM was taken from Spalding's Manuscript called Manuscript Found!!

First to respond to Fortigurn.

No, on the one hand we have several different versions of the 'First Vision', some told by Smith, some recorded by other people telling us what Smith apparently told them, and some told by people who were not Smith.

On the other hand, we have the same story being told by a number of different sources, with the same key details.

This is a highly debatable topic, and one which I am entirely unsure of why we are debating it here. It ultimately has no bearing at all on our current discussion, and though it is tempting to pursue it I do not wish to derail the thread.

Quote:
In the case of the Zelph story, all we have are journal entries and memories of different people who witnessed the event. These accounts are available on the web, and they each tell a slightly different story. They all agree on a few facts however:
1) Joseph Smith saw some ancient bones
2) Joseph Smith prophesied about the bones
3) Joseph Smith said his name was Zelph, and that he was a lamanite warrior.
4) Zelph was killed in battle.


That's a significant level of shared explicit detail.

Yes, and are details which I am entirely capable of embracing and believing. A fact which Gman believes he has taken full advantage of.

Quote:
What they do not agree on, are the details. They do not agree that it was the last battle between the lamanites and nephites. They do not agree on who it was that was known from the east to the rockies, Zelph or Onandagus.


It is disingenuous for you to say they 'do not agree' on these points. What you really mean is that they don't all include all of these details. They don't contradict each other on these points, which is what would be required for you to say that they disagree.

Allow me to examine the two specific details which I said were contradictory, and show you why it was not simply "disingenuous" on my part.

1) Was the battle
A) The final battle between the Nephites and Lamanites (Willard Richards) or
B) The last destruction among the Lamanites (Heber C. Kimball)

It cannot be both. The Book of Mormon teaches that the Lamanites were not destroyed in the final battle between the Nephites and Lamanites. Heber C. Kimball said B, while Willard Richards' second and appended version says A.

2) Who was known from the east to the Rocky Mountains?
A) Onendagus (Wilford Woodruff)
B) Zelph (Reuben Mcbride)

The accounts differ and disagree on these points. Point 1 is very important to our discussion, while point 2 is entirely unimportant.

The reason point 1 is important, is because if Joseph Smith really said that Zelph fell in the final struggle between the Nephites and Lamanites (the final battle at the Hill Cumorah), then we have a whole different discussion. My thoughts on this were:

The description of the "last destructions among the Lamanites" should not be confused with the final battle described in the Book of Mormon.
The battle described in the Book of Mormon would be described by any student as a "last destruction among the Nephites", not the Lamanites. In this battle it was the Nephite civilization who was destroyed, not the Lamanites. Also, the Book of Mormon describes this war as being fought between two wicked nations. There is no mention of any righteousness. Yet Zelph is described as a righteous warrior fighting "for freedom" under the "great prophet Onendagus".
It is probable that Joseph Smith did not even mention anything about a final battle, since it was only mentioned by one of the 5 witnesses. Had it been part of Smith's prophecy, it is extremely likely more would have included it in their journals, since that would have been a sensational part of the story.

In all of your vast knowledge of Book of Mormon familiarity, what, if anything, do you find problematic with my analysis?

Yes, and I'm prepared to accept that it was compiled by Richards. But you've given me no reason to believe it's inaccurate.

Quote:
Joseph Smith—History. Excerpts from Joseph Smith's official testimony and history, which he prepared in 1838, and which was published serially in the Times and Seasons in Nauvoo, Illinois, beginning on March 15, 1842. See History of the Church, vol. 1, pp. 1-44, for the complete account.


What does the part in bold say?

Im confused by your position Fortigurn. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that in the first instance you acknowledge that Joseph Smith did not pen the Richards "ghost writer" account , while in the next instance you seem to be argueing for Joseph Smith's authorship of the same account.

To respond to your criticism, I asked you for the site that you said included the introduction and title of the "Manscript History of the Church A-1".

It's available online on several sites. I've read the title and introduction. It says Smith wrote it.

And what you gave me was the introduction to the Pearl of Great Price, a completely different book.

Look here. That's an official LDS site. Look at the introduction:

Quote:
Joseph Smith—History. Excerpts from Joseph Smith's official testimony and history, which he prepared in 1838, and which was published serially in the Times and Seasons in Nauvoo, Illinois, beginning on March 15, 1842. See History of the Church, vol. 1, pp. 1-44, for the complete account.


What does the part in bold say?

While I am not exactly sure about where Joseph Smith's official testimony came from, what is clear are the dates. He prepared this one in 1838, and it was printed in the newspaper in March 1842. The Zelph incident wasn't recorded in any church history book until at least December of 1842, when Richards began his tenure as scribe. That is 4 years after Joseph wrote his testimony. History is clear that Joseph Smith certainly wrote his own personal testimony(which may or may not have been included in the same book that Richards helped to write, I am not sure) but that he had very little to do with any actual church history recording. The site that I provided says this:

Joseph writes very little of the history himself. His contributions are primarily dictated and drawn from his diaries and letterbooks. The scribes compose much of the history themselves, based on their observations of Joseph's activities, minutes of meetings, correspondence, and other documents accumulated during his lifetime.

http://www.saintswithouthalos.com/ss/hjs_intro.phtml

I am not sure who is responsible for the material on this site, but on it's home page is a link at the bottom for Dale Broadhurst's home page, who happens to be the author of the Solomon Spalding site Gman continually refers to. He is one of the most influential Solomon Spalding theorists, and I have corresponded with him on occasion. A very unique man.

Anyway, as has been shown the history that was written in early church history books was not written by Joseph Smith. For reasons unknown to me Willard Richards penned the Zelph story as if he were Joseph Smith, but any historian (including Broadhurst I imagine) would tell you that it was actually Richards.

Why was it written with the intent of sounding like Joseph Smith? Were people told it wasn't written by Joseph Smith?

I don't know the answers to that. I can only speculate. Ultimately it doesn't matter once we have established that it was not Joseph Smith who wrote it.

The reason I have been so adamant about clearly showing that it was not Joseph Smith who penned the account is because the final version of the account contains a certain detail that indeed could be damaging to the LDS position. It should not be believed that Joseph Smith wrote those words, and especially not that specific detail. The exact detail is this:

- "last great struggle with the Lamanites and Nephites"

Despite Gman's last post, I find this small detail the only one that is potentiall damaging to the LDS position. I have gone to great lengths to ensure that you understand who the true author of this detail is. It was not Joseph Smith, it was Willard Richards.
I have shown you that Willard Richards originally was going to include it, but removed it from his account. Then years later after Joseph's death it was included for some reason when it was finally printed in the newspaper. I believe that this entire discussion hinges on whether or not Joseph Smith believed that Zelph, who was found in Illinois, participated in the final struggle between the Nephites and the Lamanites on the Hill Cumorah. I find that to be impossible, for these reasons:

1) The battle described in the Book of Mormon would be described by any student as a "last destruction among the Nephites", not the Lamanites. In this battle it was the Nephite civilization who was destroyed, not the Lamanites.

2) The Book of Mormon describes this war as being fought between two wicked nations. There is no mention of any righteousness. Yet Zelph is described as a righteous warrior fighting "for freedom" under the "great prophet Onendagus".

3) It is probable that Joseph Smith did not even mention anything about a final battle, since it was only mentioned by one of the 5 witnesses. Had it been part of Smith's prophecy, it is extremely likely more would have included it in their journals, since that would have been a sensational part of the story.

What do you make of this?

Also, further reasons that I think it impossible that he said this:

There is nothing in any record to suggest that Joseph Smith believed the Hill Cumorah to be anywhere near Illinois, the site of Zelph's remains. Joseph Smith never believed that the last battle between the Nephites and Lamanites occured in Illinois, making it impossible for him to have said such a thing

.

Among Internet Mormons.

These kinds of comments are just rhetoric and really mean nothing at all. The church memberships is attacked on the one hand for being mindless drones who just follow their prophet, and on the other hand for being "internet mormons" who do not follow their prophet. This inconsistency is bothersome, and the whole thing is frankly a rediculous charge. We are church full of diverse personalities and opinions, just as any other. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate being branded "internet evangelical". It has a derogatory connotation that noone enjoys. If it makes you feel good by saying it, go ahead, but it will be ignored because it is simply foolishness. If you can't help but fire back go ahead, I will not respond.

You haven't proven reliable on LDS history in the past, and I'm sure Gman finds it suspicious that a history allegedly written by Smith and presented as having been written by Smith for decade after decade, is now being presented by apologists in a tight spot as not having been written by Smith.

I admit that I am wholly capable of getting things wrong. I certainly have been wrong before, though I cannot think of an instance that involves you. But I do not have a track record of mixing up my church history as you imply. You seem to place a much heavier emphasis on this "Manuscript History of the Church" then I do. No matter how it was written, or by whom, to my knowledge it has not had a prominent place in everyday LDS studies, and is an object of study for only the most avid student of LDS history. In that case, the student probably already knows the correct history of the book.

I will try to get to Gman's post later.


Sargon

Gman,

Sometimes I wonder if we disagree with each other simply because we can't stand to bear the thought of agreeing. I have presented a clear picture of the events, and provided plenty of sources to support it. How is it that you are able to see conspiracy and mischieve in it all??
I hope you recognize that if you are wrong about this Zelph thing, it is ok. It will have no bearing upon your religion. You are not defending anything here but your pride, and while that is important it is not worth going to extreme lengths to prove something that simply is wrong. I hope you don't feel that you must be right 100% of the time, because noone is. It is ok for you is the Zelph thing turns out to be nothing, it doesn't mean you are wrong, just the book you are reading.

I'm sorry to do this to you Sargon, but your postings have ultimately destroyed the credibility of the Book of Mormon.. I believe I have enough evidence from you now to make my point with you.. By your own postings you have already agreed with me that Joseph stole the plot from Spalding's manuscript.

Ok carefully choose your words so that it looks like I have shot myself in the foot. A fantastic opening. Rhetoric. I find myself guilty of the same thing. Lets see what you are really saying.

Let me explain... I will simplify this for you..

1) All along I have been stating to you that Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon stole the Spalding manuscript called "Manuscript Found."

True enough. That is clearly your position.

2) I then went into great detail to show how the Spalding account attributed to the mounds in Northern America in two ways.

A) One account is attributing the mounds to burial mounds - Spalding manuscript, p. 122.
B) The other account is attributing the mounds to fortifications - Spalding manuscript, p. 74

3) I then showed you in great detail how the Book of Mormon attributed to the mounds in Northern America in two ways.

A) One account is attributing the mounds to burial mounds - Alma 16:11
B) The other account is attributing the mounds to fortifications - Alma 50:1-6, Alma 53:3-7

I have a couple of things to say about this. As usual.
First of all, I sincerely do not believe that the events portrayed in the Book of Mormon unfolded in N. America. I believe they unfolded in Central America. I do not do this in opposition to any official position that the church has taken, although you might wrongly believe that I do. I know you demand some kind of archaelogical or other evidence for that, but that is not part of this discussion. I am merely stating my position.

Secondly, I wish to find a way to help you see that just because we find certain similarities between the two texts, that is not motive enough to suspect foul play.
Spaldings story was based on the popular myths about the mound-building civilization. It proposes a fictional narrative for how and why the mounds were built. Although the story itself is purely and clearly fictional, the mounds mentioned in the book are to some extant not. They are based on truth. They actually exist. They are the production of fortification and burial, allowing that small portion of Spalding's story to hold some plausibility. But beyond that, Spalding's story contains virtually no room for being historically plausible.

The Book of Mormon is a totally different story. It purports to be an accumulation of various experiences and stories by different cultures and generations across thousands of years. It does not contain the romantic sensationalism that the Spalding story does. It was not written for that purpose. It is a religious text, teaching doctrine and principles. It is nothing without those things. The stories are almost always religiously motivated, and are constantly interrupted by religous monologues and sermons, prophecies and exhorations. Being of the nature that it is, it necessarily records certain moments of warfare and bloodshed. This being so, it describes at times the preparations that the Nephites and Lamanites made for war. And, admittedly, there is a limited number of instances in which mounds are mentioned as part of those fortifications. As you have shown, mounds are also described upon rare occasion when graves are being dug. (Before you shout "A hah!!", know that although mounds make a mention in the BoM, I refuse to agree that they play any significant role in the story, nor in Joseph Smith's strategy for convincing others of the books veracity).

Like the Spalding story, the existence of and the motivations for mounds in the Book of Mormon could possibly hold some degree of plausibility, due to the actual existence of such mounds. But unlike the Spalding story, there exists plausibility to the accuracy of the rest of the Book of Mormon. Not only can mounds be found in Central America like those described in the Book of Mormon, but many many other items of interest as well. It is not my intention to describe them here, nor to debate them.
I only pray that you recognize that for me, and millions of other LDS, extremely convincing evidence exists that suggests that the Book of Mormon is the product of more ancient origin then 1829. Not only is Joseph accurate about burial mounds and fortifications, but he is accurate on many many many more details, details which he could not have drawn from Solomon's story, nor from the scientific body of knowledge at the time. In light of these details, the possibility that he simply exploited the popularity of the mound-builder myths becomes extremely low. It would not have been possible for him to write such a book and to found a religion simply based on the presence of mounds in the Book of Mormon. In fact, the more scholarly study that is done on the Book of Mormon, the more fascinatingly accurate we find it to be with what we know of Central America and ancient Hebrew culture.

There is a true story behind the mounds across the US. I do not believe that the Book of Mormon is it. I believe the Book of Mormon events happened far from that place. But if someone were to uncover the record of the historical mound-builders and a description of how the mounds were built (perhaps they already have, I don't know), we would expect it to contain some mention of how and why the mounds were built, and would not automatically accuse that person of stealing his story from Solomon Spalding. There is a true story to the mounds, and whatever it is, Solomon Spalding has nothing to do with it.

On to Zelph:

4) I then showed you in great detail how the Zelph story attributed to the mounds in a Northern American battle to a burial just like the Spalding manuscript. And unfortunately you agreed to this statement in great detail.

You seem to focus so much on the Spalding theory that you forget that Spalding was actually right about the mounds. Battles did take place, fortifications really were made, and people really were buried in mounds. It is a fact of history that bones are uncovered there, and that battles were fought there, and that people were buried there, yet it has nothing to do with Solomon Spalding. Joseph was totally correct about the fact that mounds existed, with bones and evidence of battles. Anyone could have done that without ever hearing of Spalding. Joseph simply learned the name of the man whose bones he was looking at. Beyond that, he said very little.

A) There was a skeleton found on top of a mound in North America. (maybe in the state of Illinios or New York, who knows).
B) His name was Zelph.
C) He was a white lamanite warrior or officer.
D) He was killed in a battle.
E) At least 5 witnesses agreed to this and wrote in their journals about the event.

The only thing that you are entirely innacurate about here is where the mound was. There is no question that it is in Illinois. Denying this fact would be a fatal blow to your credibility. I don't suggest doing that. But, I see why you insist that the events may have happened in NY, because your theory is strengthened by the prospect of the "final battle" at the Hill Cumorah, which I have already shown to be a highly improbable part of Joseph's original revelation.

Fact 1: It makes ABSOLUTELY no difference who WROTE the original statement about Zelph. Even though more of the proof points to Joseph.

Yes it does, as I explained in my previous post. It is very important that we know what exactly Joseph said, otherwise we could make false conclusions.

Fact 2: It makes ABSOLUTELY no difference who FOUGHT in the battle in the original statement about Zelph. The point here is that a battle was fought..

Yes it does. Your entire thesis is that Joseph Smith wrote about mounds in the Book of Mormon, and that Zelph is proof that he taught the Book of Mormon peoples lived in N. America in the mound-building territory. It matters greatly who fought the battles, and as I have shown in previous posts, it could not have been Book of Mormon peoples. This greatly impacts the strength of your argument.

Fact 3: In order for the Zelph accounts to fit with the Spalding accounts we only need to prove A, D and E. And unfortunately for you, you have already given that to us plus more..

Ya, Ill admit that is fits with the Spalding story. But any such vague story about an indian could fit in the Spalding story. Any legend about central plains indians could be said to have been a direct result of Spalding's influence, but that does not mean that it is. There are many other sources from which it might have come from, one being God.

In summary, Zelph was a white lamanite warrior who was killed in a battle, whose skeleton was found on top of a mound in Northern America by over 5 witnesses. And one of them was Joseph Smith himself... And this fact is undebatable because they were under the influence of the Spirit of the Almighty...

I completely and excitedly agree. Yet I see nothing that suggests that this story was influenced by Solomon Spalding. They really found bones, and the bones were in a mound, and the bones had an arrow head in the ribs, identifying a battle. These things really happened, independent of what Joseph Smith or Solomon Spalding said about them.

As Forigurn stated, the evidence suggests so far is that the Book of Mormon was the work of men. You see Sargon, there were no gold plates... The BoM was the work of men. And the plot of the BoM was taken from Spalding's Manuscript called Manuscript Found!!

A bold and inspirational conclusion no doubt. It is regrettable that it does not square with all the impressive scholarship that has come forth proving the truth of the Book of Mormon.


I do not wish to engage you in a never-ending war of words over this issue. I believe you simply need to remove your "Spalding goggles" that have clouded your vision and judgement. You see a conspiracy, where simply none exists. But I do not hold my breath for you. Unfortunately experience tells me that you will continue to bravely oppose my explanations, always unwavering in your rejection of facts, evidence, and reason.

I fear we have become a form of "board nemesis" to each other. We have much in common you and I, and I see no reason why we can't hold these conversations in a lighter tone and spirit. I wish you happiness in your search for truth.

Sargon

Sargon wrote:This is a highly debatable topic, and one which I am entirely unsure of why we are debating it here. It ultimately has no bearing at all on our current discussion, and though it is tempting to pursue it I do not wish to derail the thread.

It has a direct bearing, because you want to use two separate standards by which to judge the accounts of the 'First Vision' and the accounts of the discovery of Zelph.

Allow me to examine the two specific details which I said were contradictory, and show you why it was not simply "disingenuous" on my part.

1) Was the battle
A) The final battle between the Nephites and Lamanites (Willard Richards) or
B) The last destruction among the Lamanites (Heber C. Kimball)

It cannot be both. The Book of Mormon teaches that the Lamanites were not destroyed in the final battle between the Nephites and Lamanites. Heber C. Kimball said B, while Willard Richards' second and appended version says A.

It can certainly be both. The second statement does not say it was 'the last destruction of the Lamanites'. In any case, why would a contradiction between the two mean that neither account was accurate?

2) Who was known from the east to the Rocky Mountains?
A) Onendagus (Wilford Woodruff)
B) Zelph (Reuben Mcbride)

The accounts differ and disagree on these points. Point 1 is very important to our discussion, while point 2 is entirely unimportant.

Why can't they both have been known 'from the east to the Rocky Mountains'? What's important about this is that it places the events in North America.

The battle described in the Book of Mormon would be described by any student as a "last destruction among the Nephites", not the Lamanites. In this battle it was the Nephite civilization who was destroyed, not the Lamanites.

The phrase 'last destruction among the Lamanites' doesn't sound like 'the last destruction of the Lamanites' to me.

Also, the Book of Mormon describes this war as being fought between two wicked nations. There is no mention of any righteousness. Yet Zelph is described as a righteous warrior fighting "for freedom" under the "great prophet Onendagus".

I don't see how 'fighting for freedom' should be read as 'a righteous warrior'. Even if he was incorrectly described as a 'righteous warrior', how does that discredit the rest of the statement, and the other accounts?

It is probable that Joseph Smith did not even mention anything about a final battle, since it was only mentioned by one of the 5 witnesses. Had it been part of Smith's prophecy, it is extremely likely more would have included it in their journals, since that would have been a sensational part of the story.

This is mere guesswork.

In all of your vast knowledge of Book of Mormon familiarity, what, if anything, do you find problematic with my analysis?

The first problem I find is that you basically copy/pasted that from a Mormon apologetic article. The second problem is that you don't appear to have examined it in detail.

Im confused by your position Fortigurn. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that in the first instance you acknowledge that Joseph Smith did not pen the Richards "ghost writer" account , while in the next instance you seem to be argueing for Joseph Smith's authorship of the same account.

What I am saying is that although the account was ghost written, the fact remains that the work is actually still being attributed to Smith.

And what you gave me was the introduction to the Pearl of Great Price, a completely different book.

Which contained the title and an introduction to the History of the Church, which was directly attributed to Smith and no one else:

Joseph Smith—History. Excerpts from Joseph Smith's official testimony and history, which he prepared in 1838, and which was published serially in the Times and Seasons in Nauvoo, Illinois, beginning on March 15, 1842. See History of the Church, vol. 1, pp. 1-44, for the complete account.

Why does the LDS church still represent this work as being written by Smith, if it wasn't?

For reasons unknown to me Willard Richards penned the Zelph story as if he were Joseph Smith, but any historian (including Broadhurst I imagine) would tell you that it was actually Richards.

Wait a minute, now it's 'for reasons unknown' to you? I thought it was just a historical style of the day? That's what you said earlier. Why did the LDS church represent this work as being written by Smith, if it wasn't? Why does it still represent this work as being written by Smith, if it wasn't?

What else is there which the LDS church represents as having been written by Smith, but in fact wasn't?

Why was it written with the intent of sounding like Joseph Smith? Were people told it wasn't written by Joseph Smith?

I don't know the answers to that. I can only speculate. Ultimately it doesn't matter once we have established that it was not Joseph Smith who wrote it.

Ok, so now you don't know the answers, which is different to what you said earlier. I believe it does matter, because it casts uncertainty on anything alleged to have been written by Smith. How do we know what he wrote and what he didn't write, if the LDS church had a habit of attributing to him works he never wrote?

The reason I have been so adamant about clearly showing that it was not Joseph Smith who penned the account is because the final version of the account contains a certain detail that indeed could be damaging to the LDS position. It should not be believed that Joseph Smith wrote those words, and especially not that specific detail. The exact detail is this:

- "last great struggle with the Lamanites and Nephites"

Despite Gman's last post, I find this small detail the only one that is potentiall damaging to the LDS position. I have gone to great lengths to ensure that you understand who the true author of this detail is. It was not Joseph Smith, it was Willard Richards.

I have shown you that Willard Richards originally was going to include it, but removed it from his account. Then years later after Joseph's death it was included for some reason when it was finally printed in the newspaper.

The fact that Richards believed it should be included, and that it was ultimately included, lends great weight to the position that it was accurate. How could it have found its way in, and remained there, if it wasn't accurate?

Among Internet Mormons.

These kinds of comments are just rhetoric and really mean nothing at all.

They aren't. The distinction between Internet Mormons and chapel Mormons isn't rhetoric, it's absolutely critical. I know from personal experience, having listened to LDS missionaries teach me over several nights. What they taught is standard 'chapel Mormon' belief, which is very different to what I usually read from 'Internet Mormons'. I can see the differences for myself.

The church memberships is attacked on the one hand for being mindless drones who just follow their prophet, and on the other hand for being "internet mormons" who do not follow their prophet. This inconsistency is bothersome, and the whole thing is frankly a rediculous charge.

It isn't an inconsistency, because as you acknowledge the LDS church does indeed contain a diversity (and this distinction is simply an observation of that diversity).

We are church full of diverse personalities and opinions, just as any other.

The problem is that Internet Mormons and chapel Mormons hold contradictory views on critical issues, and both maintain that theirs is the correct, authentic, and true view of the LDS church. That's a major problem.

I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate being branded "internet evangelical".

I certainly wouldn't, because I'm not an evangelical.

It has a derogatory connotation that noone enjoys.

The term 'Internet Mormon' isn't intended to be derogatory in any way. It's simply a useful way of distinguishing between the views commonly presented by Mormons defending Mormonism on the Internet, and the views commonly held by Mormons who

But I do not have a track record of mixing up my church history as you imply.

Yes you do. You argued vigorously that the LDS church has never claimed the Hill Cumorah was in New York, and a letter from the LDS church was shown to you by Gman which stated clearly that the church has traditionally taught exactly that:



I discovered a Mormon apologist who said the same, and showed this to him:

Since the days of Joseph Smith most Saints believed that the Book of Mormon took place across the entire expanse of North and South America.

This theory—referred to as the Hemispheric Geography Theory (HGT) posits that North America is the “land northward,” that South America is the “land southward,” and that present-day Panama is the “narrow neck” of land. This is a natural interpretation of Book of Mormon geography based on a cursory reading and superficial understanding to the Book of Mormon text.

It is likely that Joseph Smith, his contemporaries, and most Saints—perhaps even most Saints today—have unquestioningly accepted this as an accurate model for Book of Mormon geography.

Related to this view is the common belief among LDS that Book of Mormon people were the founding inhabitants of all native peoples of both North and South America.

Written by Michael R. Ash for the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR), Copyright © 2004. //www.fairlds.org

Emphasis mine.

You seem to place a much heavier emphasis on this "Manuscript History of the Church" then I do. No matter how it was written, or by whom, to my knowledge it has not had a prominent place in everyday LDS studies, and is an object of study for only the most avid student of LDS history.

I cannot agree with that, given the prominence it has on official LDS sites, and the fact that extracts from it are included in the Pearl of Great Price (which describes it as having been written by Smith, even though it wasn't).

Sargon wrote:Gman,

Sometimes I wonder if we disagree with each other simply because we can't stand to bear the thought of agreeing. I have presented a clear picture of the events, and provided plenty of sources to support it. How is it that you are able to see conspiracy and mischieve in it all??

Sargon.. You have absolutely nothing.. And Mormonism is more than just a conspiracy, it is a destroyer of the soul..

Sargon wrote:I hope you recognize that if you are wrong about this Zelph thing, it is ok. It will have no bearing upon your religion. You are not defending anything here but your pride,

I'm glad you are bringing up this pride thing.. Tell me Sargon, where exactly in the BoM does it say that you should EXAMINE yourself and your motives to see if it aligns with God's motives? My Bible tells me to examine our hearts. Where does your book tell to you to examine yours or your motives?

Sargon wrote:and while that is important it is not worth going to extreme lengths to prove something that simply is wrong. I hope you don't feel that you must be right 100% of the time, because noone is. It is ok for you is the Zelph thing turns out to be nothing, it doesn't mean you are wrong, just the book you are reading.

Sargon, it appears that your conscience has been seared (1 Timothy 4:2).. Your elders are simply trying to disguise this Zelph story because they know that it flies into the face of Mormonism.

Sargon wrote:First of all, I sincerely do not believe that the events portrayed in the Book of Mormon unfolded in N. America. I believe they unfolded in Central America. I do not do this in opposition to any official position that the church has taken, although you might wrongly believe that I do. I know you demand some kind of archaelogical or other evidence for that, but that is not part of this discussion. I am merely stating my position.

Again, the facts remain.. As Fortigurn has shown us most of the Chapel Mormons believe the evidence shows that the Book of Mormon unfolded in N. America.

Sargon wrote:Secondly, I wish to find a way to help you see that just because we find certain similarities between the two texts, that is not motive enough to suspect foul play.
Spaldings story was based on the popular myths about the mound-building civilization. It proposes a fictional narrative for how and why the mounds were built. Although the story itself is purely and clearly fictional, the mounds mentioned in the book are to some extant not. They are based on truth. They actually exist. They are the production of fortification and burial, allowing that small portion of Spalding's story to hold some plausibility. But beyond that, Spalding's story contains virtually no room for being historically plausible.

While both the Spalding and BoM account's talk about the mound-building civilizations and have the archaeological evidence to back it up.. Both stories are clearly fictional.

Sargon wrote:The Book of Mormon is a totally different story. It purports to be an accumulation of various experiences and stories by different cultures and generations across thousands of years. It does not contain the romantic sensationalism that the Spalding story does. It was not written for that purpose. It is a religious text, teaching doctrine and principles. It is nothing without those things. The stories are almost always religiously motivated, and are constantly interrupted by religous monologues and sermons, prophecies and exhorations. Being of the nature that it is, it necessarily records certain moments of warfare and bloodshed. This being so, it describes at times the preparations that the Nephites and Lamanites made for war. And, admittedly, there is a limited number of instances in which mounds are mentioned as part of those fortifications. As you have shown, mounds are also described upon rare occasion when graves are being dug. (Before you shout "A hah!!", know that although mounds make a mention in the BoM, I refuse to agree that they play any significant role in the story, nor in Joseph Smith's strategy for convincing others of the books veracity).

Well the Spalding manuscript is also a religious account as well.. Please read...

Quote: "A five page chapter (pp. 27-32) is devoted to a discussion of the religion of the Ohons with many admonitions concerning one's moral and ethical obligations. In addition, Lobaska is quoted dictating many moral precepts. The section on religion ends" "Be attentive O man to the words of truth which have been recorded & pay respect to all the commandments which have been written for your observance" (p. 32)."

Sargon wrote:Like the Spalding story, the existence of and the motivations for mounds in the Book of Mormon could possibly hold some degree of plausibility, due to the actual existence of such mounds. But unlike the Spalding story, there exists plausibility to the accuracy of the rest of the Book of Mormon. Not only can mounds be found in Central America like those described in the Book of Mormon, but many many other items of interest as well. It is not my intention to describe them here, nor to debate them.

Sargon, these stores depicted in the BoM is a supposedly HISTORICAL account of the American Indians.. Both the Spalding and the Mormon account stories are accurate in one sense that the mounds were used for burials and fortifications, however the stories and the people they depict in their stores were completely fictional. Nowhere have they ever been proven to be factual.

Sargon wrote:I only pray that you recognize that for me, and millions of other LDS, extremely convincing evidence exists that suggests that the Book of Mormon is the product of more ancient origin then 1829. Not only is Joseph accurate about burial mounds and fortifications, but he is accurate on many many many more details, details which he could not have drawn from Solomon's story, nor from the scientific body of knowledge at the time. In light of these details, the possibility that he simply exploited the popularity of the mound-builder myths becomes extremely low. It would not have been possible for him to write such a book and to found a religion simply based on the presence of mounds in the Book of Mormon. In fact, the more scholarly study that is done on the Book of Mormon, the more fascinatingly accurate we find it to be with what we know of Central America and ancient Hebrew culture.

Unfortunately most of the work has already been done.. Archaeologists have studied the North America Indians for many many years now.. And NONE of the claims of the BoM fit the description of what we presently know now.. NONE!! Sargon, if you want to know more about the American Indians and their culture I suggest you visit the Smithsonian's museum of American Indian History and Culture in Washington D.C... You see some of the first ancient Americans were know as the "Clovis people" not Nephites, Lamanites, or Jaredites... And their DNA suggests they were NOT Jewish...

Sargon wrote:There is a true story behind the mounds across the US. I do not believe that the Book of Mormon is it. I believe the Book of Mormon events happened far from that place. But if someone were to uncover the record of the historical mound-builders and a description of how the mounds were built (perhaps they already have, I don't know), we would expect it to contain some mention of how and why the mounds were built, and would not automatically accuse that person of stealing his story from Solomon Spalding. There is a true story to the mounds, and whatever it is, Solomon Spalding has nothing to do with it.

We've been down this road before... Often the mounds were used for burial.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Mou ... _Minnesota

Sargon wrote:You seem to focus so much on the Spalding theory that you forget that Spalding was actually right about the mounds. Battles did take place, fortifications really were made, and people really were buried in mounds. It is a fact of history that bones are uncovered there, and that battles were fought there, and that people were buried there, yet it has nothing to do with Solomon Spalding.

Sargon, I have been telling you this from the very beginning... Again Spalding and Joseph just wanted to reveal the stories behind these mounds... And make money off of it..

Sargon wrote:Joseph was totally correct about the fact that mounds existed, with bones and evidence of battles. Anyone could have done that without ever hearing of Spalding. Joseph simply learned the name of the man whose bones he was looking at. Beyond that, he said very little.

Oh, so now you are saying that Joseph did indeed learn the name of Zelph and his battle from the Almighty Spirit... Why are you changing your story now?

Sargon wrote:The only thing that you are entirely innacurate about here is where the mound was. There is no question that it is in Illinois. Denying this fact would be a fatal blow to your credibility. I don't suggest doing that. But, I see why you insist that the events may have happened in NY, because your theory is strengthened by the prospect of the "final battle" at the Hill Cumorah, which I have already shown to be a highly improbable part of Joseph's original revelation.

Who is to say they didn't go by the hill Cumorah on their way to the state of Illinois?

Sargon wrote:Yes it does, as I explained in my previous post. It is very important that we know what exactly Joseph said, otherwise we could make false conclusions.

Good grief Sargon... NO it doesn't... In order for the Zelph accounts to fit with the Spalding accounts we only need to prove A, D and E... Only that a battle was fought there and the people were buried in the mound. We are not talking about who the author was here. Only that the event occurred... You already stated that you agreed with this remember?

Gman wrote:In summary, Zelph was a white lamanite warrior who was killed in a battle, whose skeleton was found on top of a mound in Northern America by over 5 witnesses. And one of them was Joseph Smith himself... And this fact is undebatable because they were under the influence of the Spirit of the Almighty...

Sargon wrote:I completely and excitedly agree. Yet I see nothing that suggests that this story was influenced by Solomon Spalding. They really found bones, and the bones were in a mound, and the bones had an arrow head in the ribs, identifying a battle. These things really happened, independent of what Joseph Smith or Solomon Spalding said about them.

Excellent!! Now that wasn't too hard was it? I thought I had lost you before about these two parallels. Whew, well that was two, well you see there were over 100 different parallels between the Spalding account and the BoM. So that means that we have 98 more to go!!!

Sargon wrote:A bold and inspirational conclusion no doubt. It is regrettable that it does not square with all the impressive scholarship that has come forth proving the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Well Sargon, that too will be added to the words "and it came to pass..."

Sargon wrote:I do not wish to engage you in a never-ending war of words over this issue. I believe you simply need to remove your "Spalding goggles" that have clouded your vision and judgement. You see a conspiracy, where simply none exists. But I do not hold my breath for you. Unfortunately experience tells me that you will continue to bravely oppose my explanations, always unwavering in your rejection of facts, evidence, and reason.

Maybe the real guy with the "goggles" was Joseph Smith himself... After all he claimed to use these magical spectacles.

Sargon wrote:I fear we have become a form of "board nemesis" to each other. We have much in common you and I, and I see no reason why we can't hold these conversations in a lighter tone and spirit. I wish you happiness in your search for truth.

Sargon

Ok, well we can try.. Please remember its really the Mormon elders ideology and doctrine that I really despise... Not really you Sargon.

Sargon, on the topic of 'impressive scholarship', could you direct me to the non-Mormon 'impressive scholarship' which explains the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon? Thanks.

Well guys I have to say that I am not sure I want to continue the discussion further. I feel that I have presented a thorough and accurate investigation into the matter, and I feel stronger about my position coming out of it then I did going in. Your recent replies to my last posts had no substance in my opinion, just trivial objections, implications of corruption, and an overall tone of distrust. I could decide to answer them, but they do not really have any impact on the ultimate conclusion of the matter.
Gman, it seems no matter how many times I clearly tell you my thoughts on the matter you seem to not understand. I publicly agreed with you long long long ago that the events actually happened.
Fortigurn, you have been your usual self, always looking for a way to disagree, no matter what. Thats OK though, I appreciate your criticism because it helps me to dig deeper.

You will not convince me of your position Gman, I feel that your case is very weak and based on a desperate need to explain away what you refuse to believe. I have never heard a story that explains the coming forth of the Book of Mormon as consistently and thoroughly as the true story told by Joseph Smith. I was reflecting on this the other night. The Book of Mormon has been around for about 177 years. Ever since its publication, nay, since before its publication there have been strong critics of the book, and the search for its "real" origin has been never ending. One would think that after 177 years someone would have produced undeniable proof that the book is false, yet this has not happened. All that has come forth are hypothesis and theories, mostly based on weak evidence and strong rhetoric. And I believe that with the passage of time this task will become more and more difficult. Actually, one would expect the case for the Book of Mormon to get weaker and weaker after all these years were it false, yet we see the exact opposite happening. With each passing year more and more is found that vindicates Joseph Smith.
I have not presented to you any of the evidence for the Book of Mormon. I have only been trying to defend it against your accusations. I have read much of these evidences and they always impresses me greatly. The list is just too long for it to be a coincidence. Perhaps one day we will discuss some of them, but I fear it will be no use. Your minds have been made up, and no amount of evidence will cause you to stray from your goals.

If you would like to open a new thread to address a different topic, perhaps one that arose as a tangent within this discussion please feel free. I would be more then happy to discuss the letter from the secretary of the First Presidency that Fortigurn continues to display, and that I have continually ignored in this thread. Or if you would like to put some of my alleged evidences for the Book of Mormon to the test, that might also be interesting.

Sargon

Sargon wrote:Well guys I have to say that I am not sure I want to continue the discussion further. I feel that I have presented a thorough and accurate investigation into the matter, and I feel stronger about my position coming out of it then I did going in. Your recent replies to my last posts had no substance in my opinion, just trivial objections, implications of corruption, and an overall tone of distrust. I could decide to answer them, but they do not really have any impact on the ultimate conclusion of the matter.

Why can't you answer our questions then?

Sargon wrote:You will not convince me of your position Gman, I feel that your case is very weak and based on a desperate need to explain away what you refuse to believe. I have never heard a story that explains the coming forth of the Book of Mormon as consistently and thoroughly as the true story told by Joseph Smith. I was reflecting on this the other night. The Book of Mormon has been around for about 177 years. Ever since its publication, nay, since before its publication there have been strong critics of the book, and the search for its "real" origin has been never ending. One would think that after 177 years someone would have produced undeniable proof that the book is false, yet this has not happened.

Well, if you are going by the number of years it has been around and criticized then maybe we should also consider Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism as being truthful then too..

Sargon wrote:All that has come forth are hypothesis and theories, mostly based on weak evidence and strong rhetoric. And I believe that with the passage of time this task will become more and more difficult. Actually, one would expect the case for the Book of Mormon to get weaker and weaker after all these years were it false, yet we see the exact opposite happening. With each passing year more and more is found that vindicates Joseph Smith.

Not really...

Sep. 2005. A Mormon Church official admits the 12 million member claim includes many who do not consider themselves Mormon. The Mormon Church is losing members in the United States as fast as converts are joining.. http://www.exmormon.org/

Sargon wrote:If you would like to open a new thread to address a different topic, perhaps one that arose as a tangent within this discussion please feel free. I would be more then happy to discuss the letter from the secretary of the First Presidency that Fortigurn continues to display, and that I have continually ignored in this thread. Or if you would like to put some of my alleged evidences for the Book of Mormon to the test, that might also be interesting.

Sargon

I just did... http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=2997

Why can't you answer our questions then?

It's not that I can't answer them Gman, it's that I do not believe it will be productive. I am not really trying to convince you of anything, because I know that you refuse to accept the possibility that you are wrong. The matter of Zelph has been settled for me, and your most recent objections don't appear to be anything more then desperate attempts to find something, anything to disagree with.

Well, if you are going by the number of years it has been around and criticized then maybe we should also consider Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism as being truthful then too..

Has science been slowly but surely revealing more and more evidence for the truthfulness of these books? I am not qualified to say.

Sargon wrote:
All that has come forth are hypothesis and theories, mostly based on weak evidence and strong rhetoric. And I believe that with the passage of time this task will become more and more difficult. Actually, one would expect the case for the Book of Mormon to get weaker and weaker after all these years were it false, yet we see the exact opposite happening. With each passing year more and more is found that vindicates Joseph Smith.


Not really...

Sep. 2005. A Mormon Church official admits the 12 million member claim includes many who do not consider themselves Mormon. The Mormon Church is losing members in the United States as fast as converts are joining.. http://www.exmormon.org/

What has your response to do with my comments? The objection you provide is completely unrelated to my remarks. However on the topic of your objection, it is no secret that some who are counted as Mormons do not consider themselves so. I personally know some. What is the big deal? Did you uncover some kind of dirt with this??

Thank you for the discussion. It has provided me with motivation to research further, and it has been very educational. I don't think I will be participating often with your other thread, because I am unqualified as of now. But if you desire to speak of another topic feel free.

Sargon

Fortigurn wrote:Sargon, on the topic of 'impressive scholarship', could you direct me to the non-Mormon 'impressive scholarship' which explains the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon? Thanks.

Bump.

LDS scholars employ the scientific findings of many non-LDS professionals as evidence and support for their conclusions. However, if you are asking me to provide you with the name of a non-believing scientist or scholar, whose objective has been to provide evidence for the Book of Mormon, you are crazy.
Your automatic distrust of any scholarly work put together by a LDS is very telling.


Sargon

Sargon wrote:It's not that I can't answer them Gman, it's that I do not believe it will be productive. I am not really trying to convince you of anything, because I know that you refuse to accept the possibility that you are wrong. The matter of Zelph has been settled for me, and your most recent objections don't appear to be anything more then desperate attempts to find something, anything to disagree with.

Sargon, you listen to only ONE voice.. And that is the voice of FARMS or other Mormon apologists.. All the evidence that we have shown to you is considered bunk by your peers or they don't specifically don't address it... But you know what? I bet you anything they would loose in a one on one debate..

Sargon wrote:Has science been slowly but surely revealing more and more evidence for the truthfulness of these books? I am not qualified to say.

You know what? They have more archaeological proof than the BoM ever did... And they involved real characters too..

Sargon wrote:What has your response to do with my comments? The objection you provide is completely unrelated to my remarks. However on the topic of your objection, it is no secret that some who are counted as Mormons do not consider themselves so. I personally know some. What is the big deal? Did you uncover some kind of dirt with this??

Sargon, you keep thinking that your church has it all together.. It doesn't, ok? And the more people find out about the truth, the more people will leave...