Mormons

[Born_again]

All of the correct answers to your questions can be found at LDS.org. Buy the ticket, take the ride.

He would be very foolhardy to think that I haven't got that angle covered!

[I Think]

B_A, I think you may have run Neddie out of here.

[Big ned]

Oh brother, please... I just don't have the time I used to.

Now will you please tell me which idea you are going to try and use to discredit the church this time. Seems like just a few months ago there was a big flap concerning DNA and how there could be no Hebrew blood in the american indian and now you are relying on sources that prove there was Hebrew influence on the american indians. Which one do you want to discuss? Or have you just ruined your own argument?

Could it be that Christ visited the Americas after his resurection and that explains why they have the same traditions and religious ceremonies as the Hebrews?

If you read the book of mormon (ever) you would see that there are names and places even in the old world that Joseph nor anyone in america at the time would have known about.. Also archeological evidence that didn't exist at Smith's time that has been found since. I have previously posted this all before and won't take the time to do it again.

YOu can go to fairlds.org if you want the papers.

So which one of your arguments to try and discredit the church are we going to work on now... Try and get one that doesn't ruin your previous argument. Just because several people had theories of Hebrew influence doesn't mean there wasn't Hebrew influence... it means there probably was and the Book of Mormon is further proof of that.

Next... get someone in here with something new!!!!! Oh, we can't because there isn't anything new. A book from 1823... you don't think I wasn't aware of it? Please.

[I Think]

Ned, you did not even come close to addressing B_A's points - try em one by one.

[Born_again]

That was beautiful, Big ned!! Yes, quite a response.

I'm not going to allow myself to dodge any relevant questions regarding any claims that I put to you, so let's go back to your question about similarities between View of Hebrews and BoM. You naturally claimed that there were none, with the exception of "occassional[sic] quoting of Isaiah".
What I'll do to demonstrate my objectivity is actually use studies performed by the LDS, for the LDS. Furthermore, I will only use studies performed by members of exemplary standing, and ones that have NEVER renounced their faith in the BoM. Sound fair? Of course it is!

Introducing Mr. B.H. Roberts!!

The idea was first floated in about 1902 that Joseph Smith had plagiarized or borrowed heavily from this book in creating the Book of Mormon, but needless to say the Mormon Church discounted the idea. The premier Mormon apologist of the day, B.H. Roberts, wrote in 1909 that there was no similarity between it and the Book of Mormon. Case closed, .....

This here is about as far as the likes of Big ned like to go. Sadly, some pesky grandchildren went meddling with B.H. Roberts' effects ....

..... or so everyone thought. But in 1922, things changed drastically.

In 1979 and again in 1981 B.H. Roberts' adult grandchildren donated his papers to the University of Utah with the intent that they be published. Among the papers were two internal Mormon documents authored by Roberts, called "Book of Mormon Difficulties" and "Book of Mormon Study". Being internal studies, not for public consumption, they provide a behind-the-scenes look at Roberts' honesty in admitting to Church leaders that the Book of Mormon had a number of very serious difficulties, and in the 400 page "Book of Mormon Study" Roberts concluded that Smith probably borrowed not only specific ideas but also the very framework of the Book of Mormon from "View of the Hebrews." Some quotes from Roberts:

-- "…Moreover, on subjects widely discussed, and that deal in matters of widespread public interest, there is built up in the course of years, a community knowledge of such subjects, usually referred to as 'matters of common knowledge' to which non-readers of books or of periodicals…have access…..Such 'common knowledge' existed throughout New England and New York in relation to American Indian origins and cultures; and the prevailing ideas respecting the American Indians throughout the regions named were favorable to the notion that they were of Hebrew origin…..All these notions were interwoven in the 'common knowledge' of New England and New York, in the early decades of the nineteenth century, respecting the Indian race of America. And with the existence of such a body of knowledge, or that which was accepted as 'knowledge,' and a person of vivid and constructive imaginative power in contact with it, there is little room for doubt but that it might be possible for Joseph Smith to construct a theory of origin for his Book of Mormon in harmony with these prevailing notions, and more especially since this 'common knowledge' is set forth in almost handbook form in the little work of Ethan Smith View of the Hebrews, and published from eight to five years before the Book of Mormon was published. "The question to be considered here, then, is: did such 'common knowledge,' supplemented by Ethan Smith's book respecting theories of 'origin,' and of 'history' obtain in the vicinity where Joseph Smith spent his early youth and manhood, and was he a person of sufficiently vivid and creative imagination as to produce such a work as the Book of Mormon from such materials? It will appear in what is to follow that such 'common knowledge' did exist in New England; that Joseph Smith was in contact with it; that one book, at least, with which he was most likely acquainted, could well have furnished structural outlines for the Book of Mormon; and that Joseph Smith was possessed of such creative imaginative powers as would make it quite within the lines of possibility that the book of Mormon could have been produced in that way."

-- "Did Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews furnish structural material for Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon? It has been pointed out in these pages that there are many things in the former book that might well have suggested many major things in the other. Not a few things merely, one or two, or a half dozen, but many; and it is this fact of many things of similarity and the cumulative force of them that makes them so serious a menace to Joseph Smith's story of the Book of Mormon's origin."

-- "In the light of this evidence, there can be no doubt as to the possession of a vividly strong, creative imagination by Joseph Smith, the Prophet, an imagination, it could with reason be urged, which, given the suggestions that are to be found in the 'common knowledge' of accepted American antiquities of the times, supplemented by such a work as Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, would make it possible for him to create a book such as the Book of Mormon is."

-- And in the same study, with regard to the internal problems within the Book of Mormon: "I shall hold that what is here presented illustrates sufficiently the matter taken in hand by referring to them, namely that they are all of one breed and brand; so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and undeveloped, but piously inclined mind. The evidence, I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator."

I have quoted extensively from B.H. Roberts rather than from a Mormon "critic" or summarize my own studies, mostly because he is a "hostile witness". He has no reason to exaggerate his descriptions of the problems. Roberts had other things that supported his overall faith, and it seems that he felt that someday his concerns would be solved, so he never left the Mormons. But his words nonetheless are absolutely stinging to Mormon ears.

I'm kind of thinking that there is no point in introducing the 'sceptics' or 'critics' take on the matter, as B.H. Roberts seemed to be honest enough in his evaluation.

Dean Brown did make another comment about Roberts prior to the above quote, so in fairness it should be linked:

Mention the name B.H. Roberts to any Mormon, and they will instantly recognize him as one of the staunchest defenders of the Mormon faith. In 1922 he prepared an internal Mormon study about the possibility that Smith fabricated the Book of Mormon, and he considered this whole topic of internal problems (more about this in my next post). He summarized this section of the study by saying "If...the view be taken that the Book of Mormon is merely of human origin; that a person of Joseph Smith's limitations in experience and in education, who was of the vicinage and of the period that produced the book - if it be assumed that he is the author of it, then it could be said there is much internal evidence in the book itself to sustain such a view. In the first place there is a certain lack of perspective in the things the book relates as history that points quite clearly to an undeveloped mind as their origin. The narrative proceeds in characteristic disregard of conditions necessary to its reasonableness, as if it were a tale told by a child, with utter disregard for consistency." He also wrote: ": "The allusions here to absurdities of expressions and incidents in the Book of Mormon are not made for the purpose of ridiculing the book, or casting undue aspersions upon it; but they are made to indicate what may be fairly regarded as just objects of criticism under the assumption that the Book of Mormon is of human origin, and that Joseph Smith is its author. For these absurdities in expression; these miraculous incidents in warfare; those almost mock - and certainly extravagant - heroics; these lapses of the main characters about conditions obtaining, are certainly just such absurdities and lapses as would be looked for if a person of such limitations as bounded Joseph Smith undertook to put forth a book dealing with the history and civilization of ancient peoples."

If anyone wishes to cast aspersions on the veracity of B. H. Roberts as a qualified LDS apologist, the following link will provide you with a list of books that he has published. Make up your own minds:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=Roberts%2C%20B.%20H.%20%28Brigham%20Henry%29

For my next post I'm going to introduce David Whitmer. Whitmer, for those who are not familiar with the BoM, was one of the "three witnesses" to the original Book of Mormon plates. Just when you thought that it couldn't get any better!!!

[Big ned]

And since BH roberts, there has been a wealth of knowledge come to light that would prove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I have given you the website to visit to view this research and documents. I'm not going to spend a lot of time going over something that has been around since 1922. If that is the best you can do, then so be it. Try something that is a little more recent. Of course you won't because it proves rather than disproves the BoM.

Here is a link that will take you to what BH Roberts actually said. For those that won`t click the link, it basically shows (through correspondence) that Roberts presented a paper to the leaders of the church stating what future attacks may be made on the authenticity of the book of mormon and they were not his beliefs.

http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/A ... imony.html

Here is a portion of the paper.



I just wanted the brethren to know that I was quite disappointed in the results of our conference, but not withstanding I shall be most earnestly alert upon the subject of Book of Mormon difficulties, hoping for the development of new knowledge, and for new light to fall upon what has already been learned, to the vindication of what God has revealed in the Book of Mormon; but I cannot be other than painfully conscious of the fact that our means of defense, should we be vigorously attacked along the lines of [these] questions, are very inadequate.9

This is not the expression of "abandonment" critics make it out to be. Roberts very presciently sensed that the Church needed to prepare itself to meet attacks "along these lines," and this likely greatly influenced the work of later scholars such as Hugh Nibley, Sidney B. Sperry, and FARMS. His challenging questions that repeatedly pepper the copious quotations in the study are a challenge for the Brethren, not a frenzied cry for help:

We place our revealed truths in the Book of Mormon against the alleged facts resulting from the investigations of Ethnologists and Philologists and the deductions of their science, and calmly await the vindication we feel sure that time will bring to the Book of Mormon. Much could be said for the boldness and perhaps for the honesty of such an answer, but is the reasonableness or wisdom of such an answer equally apparent? It would certainly have no effect upon the educated class throughout the world. It would only excite ridicule and contempt in them. It would be the answer of fanatics prompted by, and only possible because of ignorance, they would say. What would be the effect of such an answer upon the minds of our youth? Our youth, already so willing to follow in so many other branches of learning the deductions of the sciences in their high school and college courses. Is silence the best answer? Is silence possible in such a questioning age as ours----such an age of free inquiry? May the questions propounded to us be ignored? Would not silence be looked upon as a confession of inability to make an effective answer? Would not silence be a confession of defeat?10

What shall our answer be then? Shall we boldly acknowledge the difficulties in the case, confess that the evidences and conclusions of the authorities are against us, but notwithstanding that, we take our position on the Book of Mormon and place its revealed truths against the declarations of men, however learned, and await the vindication of the revealed truth? ...What will the effect be upon our youth of such a confession of inability to give a more reasonable answer to the questions submitted, and the awaiting of proof for final vindication? Will not the hoped for proof deferred indeed make the heart sick? ... Again I ask, is silence our best answer? And again the question comes, can we remain silent in our age of free inquiry? ...These questions are put by me at the close of this division of the 'study' not for self-embarrassment, surely, nor for the embarrassment of others, but to bring to the consciousness of myself and my brethren that we face grave difficulties in all these matters, and that if there is any way by which we may 'find wisdom, and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures'----for I am sure that neither an appeal to the books written by men, nor even to the books of scripture now in our possession, will solve our present difficulties---then a most earnest appeal should be made to that source of wisdom and knowledge, and with a faith and persistence that will admit of no denial.11

If we cannot, what is to be the effect of it all upon the minds of our youth? What is to be our general standing before the enlightened opinion of mankind? Is silence to be our answer? Again will occur to thoughtful minds the difficulties attendant upon silence. In the last analysis of things silence would be acknowledgement of defeat. Silence in an age of free inquiry is impossible. An appeal to the old writers is of little value. The recent accepted authoritative writers leave us, so far as I can at present see, no ground of appeal or defense----the new knowledge seems to be against us. To stand up and say to the modern world we place our revealed truth against all the evidence and deductions of your science, and await the vindication of new evidence yet to be discovered, is heroic; but is it, and will it be convincing? Most humbly, but also most anxiously, I await the further development of knowledge that will make it possible for us to give a reasonable answer to those who question us concerning the matters herein discussed.12

After the conclusion of the conference early in 1922, Elder Roberts wrote a more detailed study entitled "A Book of Mormon Study." Its approach, as Sterling McMurrin observed, was different from Roberts' previous defensive works:

In the heretofore unpublished manuscripts "Book of Mormon Difficulties: A Study" and "A Book of Mormon Study," [Roberts] treated the book [of Mormon] critically and forthrightly rather than defensively.13

This difference in purpose from his earlier writings has led critics to proclaim that these catalogues of possible future lines of attack represent Roberts' actual statements of belief. This claim willingly or ignorantly ignores what B.H. Roberts said about this study. In a letter to President Heber J. Grant dated March 15, 1922, Roberts recounted the January conference and explained:

My answer was, however, that it was my intention to go on with the consideration to the last analysis. Accordingly, since the matter was already so far under my hands, I continued my studies, and submit herewith the record of them. I do not say my conclusions, for they are undrawn. In writing out this my report to you of those studies, I have written it from the viewpoint of an open mind, investigating the facts of the Book of Mormon origin and authorship. Let me say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. This report herewith submitted is what it purports to be, namely a 'study of Book of Mormon origins' for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro et con, as well as that which has been produced against it, and that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it. While searching for the answers to the questions of Mr. Couch submitted through Mr. William E. Riter, I came in contact with the material here used, and concluded that while the subject was fresh in my mind to make it of record for those who should be its students and know on what ground the Book of Mormon may be questioned, as well as that which supports its authenticity and its truth... I am very sure that you will find the material herewith submitted of intense interest, and it may be of very great importance since it represents what may be used by some opponent in criticism of the Book of Mormon. [Emphasis added] 14

Looking a little silly BA. I warned you not to use tired old arguments that have been answered over and over again.

Now here is a link to the recent studies that show that Joseph Smith, nor anyone at that time could have written with such accuracies things about Hebrew culture, names, animals and grains that were thought initially not to be present in the Americas at the time and have since been discovered.

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai105.html

Thanks,
Bring on the next tired old argument, or better yet... go to the website and research the answers that the LDS side already has before you waste my... or anybody else`s time.

[Big ned]

I might also point out that the above link also has studies on newly found Hebrew writing styles that weren`t known to exist that are present in the BoM. Also names in the BoM that weren`t in the Bible or any other american literature that have since been discovered in the middle east to have existed. Joseph Smith also documents they journey of Lehi and his family through the middle east to an area that was thought not to exist... an oasis on the coast of Yemen... guess what.. it exists to the very details that is described in the BoM.

Have fun reading before your next post BA.

[Born_again]

Big ned, I will address all of those points in good time. Be clear on that!

Why do I get the feeling that you are ushering me? I'm sorry, but I am trying my level-best to treat this topic seriously and with respect but you are not affording me the same courtesy.

Please, let's take it step by step so that my critique of the BoM has ample opportunity for fair rebuttal by yourself or others. Your disruptive pattern of posting is disrespectful to those that seek the truth by degrees, and to those that would defend the BoM.

Below are listed some of B. H. Roberts' "difficulties" when making critical comparisons of The View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon.

The material in Ethan Smith's book is of a character and quantity to make a ground plan for the Book of Mormon: It supplies a large amount of material respecting American antiquities - leading to the belief that civilized or semi-civilized nations in ancient times occupied the American continents.

It not only suggests, but pleads on every page for Israelitish origin of the American Indians.

It deals with the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of Israel, as the Book of Mormon does.

It deals with the future gathering of Israel, and the restoration of the Ten Tribes, as the Book of Mormon does.

It emphasizes and uses much of the material from the prophecies of Isaiah, including whole chapters, as the Book of Mormon does.

It makes a special appeal to the Gentiles of the New World - having in mind more especially the people of the United States - to become the nursing fathers and mothers unto Israel in the New World - even as the Book of Mormon does, holding out great promises to the great Gentile nation that shall occupy America, if it acquiesces in the divine program.

It holds that the peopling of the New World was by migrations from the Old, the same as does the Book of Mormon. It takes its migrating people into a country where "never man had dwelt," just as the Book of Mormon takes it Jaredite colony into "that quarter where there never had man been."

In both cases the journey was to the northward; in both cases the colony entered into the valley of a great river; they both encountered "seas" of "many waters" in the course of their journey; in both cases the journey was a long one. The motive in both cases was the same - a religious one; Ethan is prominently connected with the recording of the matter in the one case, and Ether in the other.

Ethan Smith's book supposes that his lost tribes divide into two classes, the one fostering the arts that make for civilization, the other followed the wild hunting and indolent life that ultimately led to barbarism, which is just what happens to the Book of Mormon Peoples.

"Long and dismal" wars break out between Ethan Smith's civilized division and his barbarous division. The same occurs between Nephite and Lamanite, divisions drawn on the same lines of civilized and barbarous in the Book of Mormon.

The savage division utterly exterminates the civilized in Ethan Smith's book; the Lamanites, the barbarous division of the Book of Mormon, utterly destroy the civilized division - the Nephites.

Ethan Smith's book assumes for the ancient civilized people a culture of mechanic arts; of written language; of the knowledge and use of iron and other metals; and of navigation. The Book of Mormon does the same for its civilized peoples.

Ethan Smith's book assumes unity of race for the inhabitants of America - the Hebrew race, and no other. The Book of Mormon does the same.

Ethan Smith's book assumes that this race (save perhaps, the Eskimo of the extreme north) occupied the whole extent of the American continent. The Book of Mormon does the same for its peoples.

It assumes the Indian tongue to have had one source - the Hebrew; the Book of Mormon makes the same assumption for the language of its peoples.

Ethan Smith's book describes an instrument among the mound finds comprising breast plate with two white buckhorn buttons attached, "in imitation of the precious stones of the Urim," says Ethan Smith. Joseph Smith used some such instrument in translating the Book of Mormon called Urim and Thumim.

Ethan Smith's book admits the existence of idolatry and human sacrifice; the Book of Mormon does the same.

Ethan Smith's book extols generosity to the poor and denounces pride, as traits of the American Indian; the Book of Mormon does the same for its peoples. Ethan Smith's book denounces polygamy, the Book of Mormon under certain conditions does the same as to David and Solomon's practices.

Ethan Smith's book quotes Indian traditions of a "Lost Book of God" and the promise of its restoration to the Indians, with a return of their lost favor with the Great Spirit. This is in keeping with the lost sacred records to the savage Lamanites of the Book of Mormon.

Ethan Smith's sacred book was buried with some "high priest," "keeper of the sacred tradition"; the Book of Mormon sacred records were hidden or buried by Moroni, a character that corresponds to this Indian tradition in the Hill Cumorah.

Ethan Smith's book describes extensive military fortifications linking cities together over wide areas of Ohio and Mississippi valleys, with military observatory or "watch towers" overlooking them; the Book of Mormon describes extensive fortifications erected throughout large areas with military "watch towers" here and there overlooking them.

Ethan Smith's book also describes sacred towers or "high places" in some instances devoted to true worship, in other cases to idolatrous practices; the Book of Mormon also has its prayer or sacred towers.

Part of Ethan Smith's ancient inhabitants effect a change from monarchial governments to republican forms of government; Book of Mormon peoples do the same.

In Ethan Smith's republics the civil and ecclesiastical power is united in the same person; this was a practice also with the Book of Mormon people.

Some of Ethan Smith's peoples believed in the constant struggle between the good and the bad principle, by which the world is governed; Lehi, the first of Nephite prophets, taught the existence of a necessary opposition in all things - righteousness opposed to wickedness - good to bad; life to death, and so following.

Ethan Smith's book speaks of the gospel having been preached in the ancient America; the Book of Mormon clearly portrays a knowledge of the gospel had among the Nephites.

Ethan Smith gives, in considerable detail, the story of the Mexican culture-hero Quetzalcoatl - who in so many things is reminiscent of the Christ; the Book of Mormon brings the risen Messiah to the New World, gives him a ministry, disciples and a church.

Can such numerous and startling points of resemblance and suggestive contact be merely coincidence? (Roberts 1992, p. 240-242)

If you are not satisfied with the 18 core parallels that Roberts listed, David Presuitte in his Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon (2000, McFarland ISBN 078640826X) compiles dozens more(>60, I believe) in his critically acclaimed research.

What is interesting is that LDS apologists have been forced to publish a list of "Unparallels" to counter the "Parallels", and they did manage to make their numbers higher than that of Roberts' "Parallels". Thankfully, their argument is one of unparalleled stupidity, maintaining that because the 'whole' was not directly copied, then it was not copied at all! There are some 13 million people on this planet that believe that argument to be valid--and I'm not one of them!

If there are any rebuttals then please fire-away. The View of the Hebrews is merely one of the several books that the BoM has been drawn from, so once we are done with it I would like to discuss the wholesale plagiarising(and we are talking "word-for-word" here; spelling/grammatical mistakes and all!!!) of the KJV of the Holy Bible in Joe Smiths BoM.

LATE EDIT TO RESPOND TO BIG NED'S SYNCHRONOUS CROSS-POSTING:
With regards to Roberts' intentions, reservations and remorse; anyone who followed my links would have clearly been able to judge for themselves the amount of dissonance the poor fellow went through. That is why I said the following:

If anyone wishes to cast aspersions on the veracity of B. H. Roberts as a qualified LDS apologist, the following link will provide you with a list of books that he has published. Make up your own minds:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query ... 20Henry%29

You obviously hold peoples determinism in low regard. It is ALL THERE, including the letters that you have published above. The problem for you is that it requires turning thousands of pages and actually reading the text!
At the end of the day, I have used a hostile witness to argue my claim--and you don't like it! Would you ever be so inclined to offer such levity?

[Big ned]

Maybe you didn't read Roberts letter to the brethren that clearly stated he brought forward these points in order to discuss the answer to the claims that antimormons would certainly bring up. He clearly states his belief in the BoM in my posting and states his reasons for writing down such points. lThe points are all quite clearly answers at the website I provided.

You obviously haven't spent much time reading at that website and therefore are not open to the possibility that you are wrong, so what more do you want from me. You wanted answers, I provided them. I'm not going to cut and paste point by point because I have read the articles and this isn't the first time someone has asked me about Roberts or the authenticity of the BoM. Read and study and then get back to me. The rebuttals are there and they are every bit as reasonable as your aspersions.

[Born_again]

You are fooling nobody but yourself, Big ned. I have only endorsed what you are trying to say, and have provided evidences for it! There is no need whatsoever to try and accuse me of omission when it comes to Roberts. He is my HOSTILE WITNESS!! Do you not understand that concept?

So rather than concentrating on blurring the topic with inconsequential and hastily researched knee-jerk tripe, why don't you put your efforts into ripping my assertions to shreds?

This reasonably, is your last chance to discuss the "Parallels" of BoM and VotH before I conclude and move on to the KJV Bible within the BoM. Please avail yourself to it, as your tactics are becoming tedious.

[Big ned]

My tactics are tedious to you because they have destroyed your attempt at discrediting BH Roberts. I understand what a hostile witness is... the only problem is when you are academically bankrupt and continue to claim that what BH Roberts wrote was what he believed because you attach no context to it.... there leaves no room for further discussion.

What you quoted from BH Roberts was a paper for the church leaders at the time to examine due to the fact that he (Roberts) felt opponents of the church (BA) would bring up such arguments and since young people and those who have not researched the history and doctrine of the church would possibly be swayed by surface attacks, he was concerned that they should have an answer to prevent this.

Let me say it again... you misrepresent Roberts in saying that he believed the things you put forth. He didn't. It is an outright lie to say this was some secret document that his children uncovered years later.... it was a paper presented to the quorum of the twelve. It is well known among those in the church who have read the history of the church at all.

Now as to the assertions that he felt would come up, I refer you back to www.fairlds.org. You may want to stop quoting people who will lie to try to discredit things.... that, by it's very nature, leaves the person with no credibility.

[Born_again]

My tactics are tedious to you because they have destroyed your attempt at discrediting BH Roberts. I understand what a hostile witness is... the only problem is when you are academically bankrupt and continue to claim that what BH Roberts wrote was what he believed because you attach no context to it.... there leaves no room for further discussion.

Show me one single instance of me attempting to discredit Roberts. FAIL!! You cannot ... its in your head, Big ned, it's residing exclusively in your head! Do you understand the seriousness of that? That is deeply worrisome.

You accuse me of "discrediting" my hostile witness in one breath, then in the next you claim to understand what a hostile witness is!!! Prithee, why would I do that? Why would you do that?

What you quoted from BH Roberts was a paper for the church leaders at the time to examine due to the fact that he (Roberts) felt opponents of the church (BA) would bring up such arguments and since young people and those who have not researched the history and doctrine of the church would possibly be swayed by surface attacks, he was concerned that they should have an answer to prevent this.

Erm .... yes. That is the gist of it, Big ned, I'm glad you are back with us.

Let me say it again... you misrepresent Roberts in saying that he believed the things you put forth. He didn't. It is an outright lie to say this was some secret document that his children uncovered years later.... it was a paper presented to the quorum of the twelve. It is well known among those in the church who have read the history of the church at all.

Blimey, I spoke too soon.
I made no representation of what I thought he believed or not! I posted his opinion, as written in letters and manuscripts.
Did I say the documents were "secret"? No I did not!! The church decided that they should not be published--which is exactly why when the GRANDchildren unearthed them they wanted them published!! What I said is still on the other page, Big ned, unedited. So instead of calling me a liar and all sorts of other mischief, go and have a look!

Now as to the assertions that he felt would come up, I refer you back to http://www.fairlds.org. You may want to stop quoting people who will lie to try to discredit things.... that, by it's very nature, leaves the person with no credibility.

We can clearly see who is living a lie, Big ned.

[bcbudrockz69]

and now a commercial lol


theres no way in hell, that ppl from israel came to america and became the natives or indians aboriginals, if that were true that would make me jewish

[Big ned]

OK, so let's clear up the technicality.. you didn't say that BH Roberts had a problem with the BoM, but the person you quoted did. He did not have a problem... he identified areas that others might attack and was providing answers. For some questions, at the time, there were no answers.

Again, I will again refer you to fairlds.org to get the answers that have been discovered since BH Roberts submitted his papers. There is no way any one in America could have written the BoM with the knowledge they had alone.... why don't you address that point instead of relying on a 1922 paper that was written by a member who never denied the truthfulness of the BoM? You see you are basing you argument on a paper that doesn't do what you claim it does.

If you are honest in your scholarship, you would look at what has been discovered since 1922. Since you are just trying to play gotcha, we can assume you have no desire to pull yourself out of the 1920's and will remain ignorant on that topic.

[Born_again]

OK, so let's clear up the technicality.. you didn't say that BH Roberts had a problem with the BoM, but the person you quoted did. He did not have a problem... he identified areas that others might attack and was providing answers. For some questions, at the time, there were no answers.

Here we go again!! Okay, so you have conceded that I did not discredit B. H. Roberts. That's a start, I suppose? Lets look at what Dean Brown and I said, and see if it can be termed a "technicality" or "discrediting"?:

....Furthermore, I will only use studies performed by members of exemplary standing, and ones that have NEVER renounced their faith in the BoM. Sound fair? Of course it is! ....

....I'm kind of thinking that there is no point in introducing the 'sceptics' or 'critics' take on the matter, as B.H. Roberts seemed to be honest enough in his evaluation.

.... If anyone wishes to cast aspersions on the veracity of B. H. Roberts as a qualified LDS apologist, the following link will provide you with a list of books that he has published. Make up your own minds:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query ... 20Henry%29

Mention the name B.H. Roberts to any Mormon, and they will instantly recognize him as one of the staunchest defenders of the Mormon faith. In 1922 he prepared an internal Mormon study about the possibility that Smith fabricated the Book of Mormon, and he considered this whole topic of internal problems. ....

..... I have quoted extensively from B.H. Roberts rather than from a Mormon "critic" or summarize my own studies, mostly because he is a "hostile witness". He has no reason to exaggerate his descriptions of the problems. Roberts had other things that supported his overall faith, and it seems that he felt that someday his concerns would be solved, so he never left the Mormons. But his words nonetheless are absolutely stinging to Mormon ears.

Still on your quote above, you state:

you didn't say that BH Roberts had a problem with the BoM, but the person you quoted did. He did not have a problem... he identified areas that others might attack and was providing answers.

How would you define:

"Did Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews furnish structural material for Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon? It has been pointed out in these pages that there are many things in the former book that might well have suggested many major things in the other. Not a few things merely, one or two, or a half dozen, but many; and it is this fact of many things of similarity and the cumulative force of them that makes them so serious a menace to Joseph Smith's story of the Book of Mormon's origin." ....

..... "I shall hold that what is here presented illustrates sufficiently the matter taken in hand by referring to them, namely that they are all of one breed and brand; so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and undeveloped, but piously inclined mind. The evidence, I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator."

This was taken from a manuscript authored by Roberts, titled "Book of Mormon Difficulties"!! Is a 'difficulty' not a 'problem'? Does "sorrowfully" not express remorse? Is a "serious a menace" not a potential 'problem'?

It's all in your head, Big ned. I don't know what dictionary you have been using all your life(Does LDS produce a dictionary?), but it is not compatible with the mainstream ones! B.H. Roberts DID have a "Problem" with the similarity of VotH and the BoM, which is why he wrote more than 600 pages on the subject!! If you are somehow trying to twist this to mean that Dean Brown and I were inferring that Roberts had a problem with the BoM itself then I will have to expose you once again:

and ones[B.H. Roberts] that have NEVER renounced their faith in the BoM

I have quoted extensively from B.H. Roberts rather than from a Mormon "critic" or summarize my own studies, mostly because he is a "hostile witness". He has no reason to exaggerate his descriptions of the problems. Roberts had other things that supported his overall faith, and it seems that he felt that someday his concerns would be solved, so he never left the Mormons.

That is a resounding FAIL in my dictionary, Big ned, .... and I'll say it again: It is all in your head!!

.... why don't you address that point instead of relying on a 1922 paper that was written by a member who never denied the truthfulness of the BoM? You see you are basing you argument on a paper that doesn't do what you claim it does.

I have, I am, I will, I would, you wish!

If you are honest in your scholarship, you would look at what has been discovered since 1922. Since you are just trying to play gotcha, we can assume you have no desire to pull yourself out of the 1920's and will remain ignorant on that topic.

Are you trying to usher me again, Big ned? You'll be happy to know that I have every intention of moving beyond the 1920's, but, only once I have vanquished my "ignorance" in BoM matters preceding that date. All in good time, my friend.

I think we are now ready for the King James' Version of the Holy Bible, as featured in the BoM?

LATE EDIT:
I almost forgot--Before we leave the topic of B.H. Roberts, may I remind you of what you stated?:

Quite simply that you had better go back and read the book of Mormon then because there are no similartities what so ever.

Do you regret saying that now, or will you just class it as a "difficulty"?