Celestial Kingdom

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think the mistake is claiming that Joseph Smith couldn't possibly had read the book. . . because he well could have.

No the mistake is "assuming he did read it because it was there".

We can play this game till the sun goes down, but it won't accomplish much.

There is not much evidence that he did read it. If you have evidence that he did please present it.

[thews]

It doesn't work that way. You have to have actual historical evidence that JS new of the book and read it. Not just here is a book that was in print.

Really? So unless there's a picture of Joseph Smith checking the book out, it couldn't possibly have happened? There's a difference between a "reasonable doubt" and a "shadow of a doubt". Regardless of whetehr or not you need shadow of a doubt evidence, the fact that the books existed and could have been referenced are factual and negate the "there's no way Joseph Smith could have known about Arabia" argument, one that Jeff Lindsay uses.

Sorry but the "idoit savant" therory is one of the worst theories I have heard.

They are all flawed using your logic. You can pound the square peg into the round hole to make it fit if you choose, but ignoring the facts isn't going to bring you closer to the truth IMO.

[ttribe]

You can pound the square peg into the round hole to make it fit if you choose, but ignoring the facts isn't going to bring you closer to the truth IMO.

Something about a mote and a beam come to mind here.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Really? So unless there's a picture of Joseph Smith checking the book out, it couldn't possibly have happened? There's a difference between a "reasonable doubt" and a "shadow of a doubt". Regardless of whetehr or not you need shadow of a doubt evidence, the fact that the books existed and could have been referenced are factual and negate the "there's no way Joseph Smith could have known about Arabia" argument, one that Jeff Lindsay uses.

They are all flawed using your logic. You can pound the square peg into the round hole to make it fit if you choose, but ignoring the facts isn't going to bring you closer to the truth IMO.

Dude your arguemnts are so bad. So becuase I claimed that the idoit savant theory is one of the worst I have heard you jump to "They are all flawed" using my logic. Since you know so much about me why don't you tell me what I think about each theory.

You havn't presented any facts. You have presented specualation. You assume becase a certain book is avaible that JS must have read it. Do you realise how many books JS "must have" read? It is in the 1,000's. And even those books don't contain relevant data to the BoM.

THe worst part of your argument is that you haven't yet shown that it was availbe in Palmyra, that JS even knew about it ot read, and the most important that the book even covers the facts teh JS supposedly knew before he wrote the BoM.

It isn't enough to just say "The book exsists so it is possible that he read it"

I will give you an analogy of how this "possiblilty" works.

I have 8, 6 sided die and on each die there are letters on it each side.

The die when cast have a chance to spell "drum roll".

If I cast my die 5 separte times to spell the word drum roll.

Now it is possible that I will spell that word every time, and it is possible I can cast it a billion times and never get it.

When talking about the possibilites with what JS could have read I don't place my bets on the roll of some dice for my theories. I look to what the historical evidence suggests and go from there.

[Redefined]

No the mistake is "assuming he did read it because it was there".

We can play this game till the sun goes down, but it won't accomplish much.

There is not much evidence that he did read it. If you have evidence that he did please present it.

That is called ignoring the fact that it could he could have. . . thus choosing to ignore. . . thus choosing to be ignorant.

[David T]

That is called ignoring the fact that it could he could have. . . thus choosing to ignore. . . thus choosing to be ignorant.

Present the evidence:

1. This book contains Geography referenced in the Book of Mormon

2. This book was available in the Palmyra Library, or any library (or private residence) Joseph would have access to.

Then we'll talk.

[Vance]

The fact that the book existed at the time doesn't mean it was available to JS.

Where is the evidence that it was available to JS? Was there a copy in a nearby library? Where is the evidence?

Does ignoring the fact that there is no evidence make you ignorant?

[TrespassersW]

The arguments in here make it seem as if everything Swedenborg wrote would have to be exact to have relevance. You can deny them if you choose, but it doesn't negate that there are far too many similarities to make an act of random chance. For the record Joseph Smith liked to read... they had books back then on many subjects. The argument that he couldn't have possibly known enough about Arabia to write about locations is false, as referenced above.

Actually, the similarities that I see are very general. And most could easily have been derived from the Bible.

I'm always cautious when I see parallels being drawn based on someone paraphrasing two different sources. It's just too easy to make them sound far more similar than they actually are (For example, someone saying that Swedenborg spoke of "degrees of glory" when it doesn't look like he did--this is a paraphrase to make his theology sound more like Joseph Smith's than it actually is). This is true for both critics and apologists. It's so easy to take two ideas that are only tangentially similar and portray them as parallel that it can be, and often is, done inadvertently.

Before forming an opinion on parallels like this, it is important to take a look at the source material and judge for yourself just how similar they are or aren't. I've been reading Swedenborg's Heaven and Hell, and once you strip away the paraphrasing and the careful presentation, I just don't see any really impressive similarities. I don't insist that they have to be exact, but they have to be at least similar in some meaningful way that couldn't be easily derived from some other source. The similarities I see are about general themes and are mostly biblical. It isn't very meaningful that both believed in three heavens when both were likely introduced to the idea from the Bible and both approached the subject so differently. It isn't very meaningful that both discussed a form of heavenly marriage when they both had very different ideas about it and Swedenborg's drew heavily from the parable of the ten virgins.

What specifically struck you as being so similar that it was beyond chance? The sheer number of them isn't very impressive when the quality of the similarities is so poor (the theology had to be distorted a bit for them to even appear similar in some cases).

The book you cited is an interesting example. Sure, it was about travels in Arabia. And it was around during Joseph's lifetime. But would that book have provided Joseph with any of the specific knowledge he exhibited in the Book of Mormon? Does it mention Nehem? Wadi Sayq? Does it describe the spice trail that they (presumably) followed? The mountain ranges of that area? The river? What, exactly, is it that you're suggesting that Joseph could have gotten from the book you cited?

[Redefined]

The fact that the book existed at the time doesn't mean it was available to JS.

Where is the evidence that it was available to JS? Was there a copy in a nearby library? Where is the evidence?

Doesn't mean it wasn't available.

[Vance]

Doesn't mean it wasn't available.

Where is your evidence that it was available?

[Redefined]

Present the evidence:

1. This book contains Geography referenced in the Book of Mormon

2. This book was available in the Palmyra Library, or any library (or private residence) Joseph would have access to.

Then we'll talk.

B. H. Roberts Studies of the Book of Mormon

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That is called ignoring the fact that it could he could have. . . thus choosing to ignore. . . thus choosing to be ignorant.

Does this represent some kind of an argument?

You have yet to show that that book has any relevant material in it.

Don't call me ignorant when you your self are unaware of the arguemnts.

Possible doesn't mean probable. Sorry.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

B. H. Roberts Studies of the Book of Mormon

Yeah and?? I assume you are trying to make an arguement again.

[ttribe]

B. H. Roberts Studies of the Book of Mormon

Here we go again - B.H. Roberts Link.

[Redefined]

Does this represent some kind of an argument?

You have yet to show that that book has any relevant material in it.

Don't call me ignorant when you your self are unaware of the arguemnts.

Possible doesn't mean probable. Sorry.

Well, what would you call ignoring possibilities? I say that it is possible that Joseph Smith could have seen the book. . . and you say, proove it. Are you claiming it is impossible for him to have read the book?

[thews]

Present the evidence:

1. This book contains Geography referenced in the Book of Mormon

2. This book was available in the Palmyra Library, or any library (or private residence) Joseph would have access to.

Then we'll talk.

How about the burden of proof is on you? Can you prove the books that could have given Joseph Smith, or someone else who could have written the Book of Mormon were not in the Palmyra library? Even if you could, it doesn't negate that the books were available.

Note that the assumption Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon by himself is a belief and not a fact. If you accept it as fact it still doesn't make it so. Using this point, if someone else had written it, or was the primary author, then any reference could have been used if it were written in another place. Also note that 1830 was a long time ago. It's not like computers existed to document every book checked out, but again the argument is the data existed (books) and could have been referenced.

[Redefined]

Here we go again - B.H. Roberts Link.

Do you feel like I'm not aware of who B. H. Roberts is? Maybe your actual question is why I would use him as an example against Joseph Smith's integrity.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, what would you call ignoring possibilities? I say that it is possible that Joseph Smith could have seen the book. . . and you say, proove it. Are you claiming it is impossible for him to have read the book?

I never once said it was impossible. All I said is that if you wish to foist that JS made the whole thing up you need to prove. You can't just say well "it is possible"

Possible doesn't mean probable.

Monkies could fly out of my butt, it is possible but not probable.

You need to show the connection not just assert it.

[emeliza]

Don't laugh at me Cinepro, but I have always thought that there were tons of people that had similar ideas of heaven that are similar to what the BoM talks about. It doesn't surprise me. I don't think JS used others ideas, I think it just happens to be that others had the correct ideas or were inspired. As humans we honestly aren't that unique even though we pretend we are. Look at the near death stories and see how much is the same. Look at convert stories (to any faith) and look how similar they are. Heck even look at de-convert stories and look how similar they are. They all have inspired the person in some way or another to be unique to them, and put them into some type of action, but honestly they aren't unique. I am not saying they shouldn't mean something or continue to be unique to them, but with as many humans as we have on the planet now and have in the span of the earth's existence, it isn't that odd that so many 'stories' are similar. We can either accept that many people are inspired, decide the everyone copies everyone, or decide that no one is inspired. I picked the first one, but that might just be my cup half full personality.

[Redefined]

I never once said it was impossible. All I said is that if you wish to foist that JS made the whole thing up you need to prove. You can't just say well "it is possible"

Possible doesn't mean probable.

Monkies could fly out of my butt, it is possible but not probable.

You need to show the connection not just assert it.

No, actually, I don't think monkies can fly out of your butt.

Adding. . . It's actually not possible.

[ttribe]

Do you feel like I'm not aware of who B. H. Roberts is?

Obviously not.

Maybe your actual question is why I would use him as an example against Joseph Smith's integrity.

I didn't pose a question, that I know of. I was posting a link that combats the idea that there is anything B.H. Roberts could possibly have said that supports the idea that JS's integrity should be called into question with respect to the BoM.

[Redefined]

Obviously not.

I didn't pose a question, that I know of. I was posting a link that combats the idea that there is anything B.H. Roberts could possibly have said that supports the idea that JS's integrity should be called into question with respect to the BoM.

Obviously, critics have made some points about it enough so that apologists have felt the need to address it.

[ttribe]

Obviously, critics have made some points about it enough so that apologists have felt the need to address it.

Because of the misstatements which were in their so-called "points". I should think you smart enough to understand the impact of quote mining - it can be used to make someone sound like they support just about any position.

[Redefined]

Because of the misstatements which were in their so-called "points". I should think you smart enough to understand the impact of quote mining - it can be used to make someone sound like they support just about any position.

Maybe I should have said conclusions rather than points. . . which seemed to be interpreted as out of context quotes.

[ttribe]

Maybe I should have said conclusions rather than points. . . which seemed to be interpreted as out of context quotes.

And the link I posted provides Elder Roberts' ACTUAL conclusions. Not the ones critics attempt to infer. And, lest there be any confusion - Elder Roberts lived a believer and died a believer as well.