Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 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. It is not given to us to prove your points for you. Besides you cannot prove a negative.You need to prove that they were in the library and the JS did read them and that the books contain any relevant data that converges with the BoM. You are the one asserting that he did. Now you need to prove your claim. It is better for you to just say "I don't beleive the BoM" and leave it at that, then to say JS obviously made it up. Now you are making a claim and you need to prove that claim. It isn't my job to prove that claim for you. Link to comment
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 No, actually, I don't think monkies can fly out of your butt. Adding. . . It's actually not possible.Yup. Link to comment
Vance Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 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?Ignoring possibilities?You mean like the possibility that JS was a TRUE Prophet of God? How about THAT POSSIBILITY?Humm!!!!!!!!! Link to comment
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 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.And I'm trying to tell you that I am not unaware of who B. H. Roberts was and what he did or did not go to the grave believing. To clarify, when I said conclusions, I was talking about the critics conclusions about Roberts and his study. Link to comment
robuchan Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 How could Smith plagiarize doctrine that had already been among men since Adam? This is like saying he stole polygamy from Abraham.I wonder why the doctrine was never mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Link to comment
ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 And I'm trying to tell you that I am not unaware of who B. H. Roberts was and what he did or did not go to the grave believing. To clarify, when I said conclusions, I was talking about the critics conclusions about Roberts and his study.I understand...it's the critics' conclusions that are the problem. They are not inline with what Elder Roberts actually said, believed, and concluded, and yet they continually invoke his name as it is some argument-ending gotcha; which it isn't. Link to comment
ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I wonder why the doctrine was never mentioned in the Book of Mormon.You mean like Jacob Ch. 2? Link to comment
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 It is not given to us to prove your points for you. Besides you cannot prove a negative.You need to prove that they were in the library and the JS did read them and that the books contain any relevant data that converges with the BoM. You are the one asserting that he did. Now you need to prove your claim. It is better for you to just say "I don't beleive the BoM" and leave it at that, then to say JS obviously made it up. Now you are making a claim and you need to prove that claim. It isn't my job to prove that claim for you.It is already "prooven" that it is POSSIBLE that he could have. . . and that is what I'm claiming here. I didn't bring my conclusions as to whether he did or not into this. If I would have said. . . he DID read it. . then I would have the burden of prooving that. Personally I don't know if he did or not, but it isn't too far-fetched for me to believe that he did. Link to comment
ttribe Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 It is already "prooven" that it is POSSIBLE that he could have. . . and that is what I'm claiming here. I didn't bring my conclusions as to whether he did or not into this. If I would have said. . . he DID read it. . then I would have the burden of prooving that. Personally I don't know if he did or not, but it isn't too far-fetched for me to believe that he did.How far-fetched is it at this point for you to believe that he didn't and that he was really telling the truth about his experiences? Link to comment
Vance Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 It is already "prooven" that it is POSSIBLE that he could have. . . and that is what I'm claiming here. I didn't bring my conclusions as to whether he did or not into this. If I would have said. . . he DID read it. . then I would have the burden of prooving that. Personally I don't know if he did or not, but it isn't too far-fetched for me to believe that he did.To PROVE that it was "possible" you have to PROVE that there was a copy AVAILABLE to him!!!!You haven't even provided ANY evidence that it was AVAILABLE let alone PROVEN it. Link to comment
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Ignoring possibilities?You mean like the possibility that JS was a TRUE Prophet of God? How about THAT POSSIBILITY?Humm!!!!!!!!!I didn't ignore that possiblity. . . in fact, I fully embraced that possiblity for the first 25 years of my life. Link to comment
mercyngrace Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 robuchan, on 09 October 2009 - 08:46 AM, said:I wonder why the doctrine was never mentioned in the Book of MormonYou mean like Jacob Ch. 2?Robuchan,Have you even read the Book of Mormon? Link to comment
Vance Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!What about the POSSIBILITY that JS was a TRUE Prophet of GOD!!!Humm!!!! Link to comment
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 To PROVE that it was "possible" you have to PROVE that there was a copy AVAILABLE to him!!!!You haven't even provided ANY evidence that it was AVAILABLE let alone PROVEN it.Which is where B. H. Roberts study comes into play. Link to comment
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!What about the POSSIBILITY that JS was a TRUE Prophet of GOD!!!Humm!!!!Refer to post above where I responded to this. Thanx. Link to comment
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 How far-fetched is it at this point for you to believe that he didn't and that he was really telling the truth about his experiences?That is seemingly rhetorical. Link to comment
Vance Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I didn't ignore that possiblity. . . in fact, I fully embraced that possiblity for the first 25 years of my life.So it IS possible that JS was a TRUE prophet and that things came to him the way he SAID that they did!So WHY don't you believe it? Link to comment
robuchan Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 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.Strong statement. Have you read any of BH's actual writings or just the FAIR responses? Link to comment
emeliza Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Is there really an argument going on about whether JS might have seen what Swedenborg wrote? Yes, there is the possibility that JS did. I read where some of the ideas of Swedenborg are the same as what we as LDS believe. What are the differences? Are their vast differences? Or is it all exactly the same? Link to comment
Vance Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Which is where B. H. Roberts study comes into play.Sorry, but you haven't shown that B. H. supports your assertion! Link to comment
robuchan Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 You mean like Jacob Ch. 2?I'm not sure what you mean. I'm talking about the Swedenborg stuff. Link to comment
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I understand...it's the critics' conclusions that are the problem. They are not inline with what Elder Roberts actually said, believed, and concluded, and yet they continually invoke his name as it is some argument-ending gotcha; which it isn't.Didn't mean I had to come to the same conclusion Roberts did, just because he pointed out the questions and decided to hold onto the church faithfully rather than starting down another path. His conclusion doesn't invalidate the possibility of the questionable origins of the BOM. Adding. . . which he himself pointed out. Link to comment
robuchan Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 robuchan, on 09 October 2009 - 08:46 AM, said:Robuchan,Have you even read the Book of Mormon?I'm an RM, BYU grad, been active my whole life. Have served and do now in various church leadership callings. Currently hold temple recommend. I've read the BOM at least 20 times. Link to comment
Redefined Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 So it IS possible that JS was a TRUE prophet and that things came to him the way he SAID that they did!So WHY don't you believe it?Reality hit me. . . . like a semi. Link to comment
mercyngrace Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I'm an RM, BYU grad, been active my whole life. Have served and do now in various church leadership callings. Currently hold temple recommend. I've read the BOM at least 20 times.You need to go back and read your original comment then - you wrote "I wonder why is isn't mentioned in the Book of Mormon."Comment #80 is the source of our misunderstannding.What is is that you find missing from the BOM? Kingdoms of glory? Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.