How Could Joseph Be So Wrong...and Yet Right?

[Johnnie Cake]

11 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

11 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

I am saying that if someone wishes to post something in their attempts to discredit, they should be prepared to show it has not been altered.

For example, if I were to want to show that Popes and Bishops knew children were being abused and that their conduct in allowing it shows the Catholic Church is not being led by God, I should be prepared to show my sources and show that my sources are accurate.  Agreed?

 

CountryBoy...by your standard...we could not post anything from the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C or PoGP...all of which, have undergone alterations from their original manuscripts

Edited July 12, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[UtahTexan]

6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

CountryBoy...by your standard...we could not post anything from the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C or PoGP...all of which, have undergone alterations from their original manuscripts

ah....but we can show the changes and the changes can be verified...nice deflect, but wrong again

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

ah....but we can show the changes and the changes can be verified...nice deflect, but wrong again

Given that we only have some of the original BOM manuscript and none of the original bible manuscripts, I don't know how you can say this.

[UtahTexan]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Given that we only have some of the original BOM manuscript and none of the original bible manuscripts, I don't know how you can say this.

I was not talking about the Bible.  The LDS Scriptures, we can.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

I am saying that if someone wishes to post something in their attempts to discredit, they should be prepared to show it has not been altered.

For example, if I were to want to show that Popes and Bishops knew children were being abused and that their conduct in allowing it shows the Catholic Church is not being led by God, I should be prepared to show my sources and show that my sources are accurate.  Agreed?

 

In the case under discussion, how could someone show that it has not been altered?  You're presenting a challenge; what kind of response do you expect (and what would it take for you to agree that the challenge has been met and the integrity of the quotes is proven)?

I'm not sure what your hypothetical has to do with anything.  The passage under consideration in the OP is neither accusatory nor inflammatory.  It is simply retelling a visit the author had with Joseph Smith, in which Joseph and his mother made some claims about the ancient Egyptian artifacts which, at the time and until recently, were not in the least bit controversial (although they were unique and probably a little surprising).  The claims made by Joseph Smith in the OP are only slightly more specific and unusual than the claims published by the Church to this day regarding The Book of Abraham.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

I was not talking about the Bible.  The LDS Scriptures, we can.

No we can't. We don't have full original transcripts. Who knows what kind of changes have been made where the original's have been lost.

[UtahTexan]

6 minutes ago, cinepro said:

 

In the case under discussion, how could someone show that it has not been altered?  You're presenting a challenge; what kind of response do you expect (and what would it take for you to agree that the challenge has been met and the integrity of the quotes is proven)?

I'm not sure what your hypothetical has to do with anything.  The passage under consideration in the OP is neither accusatory nor inflammatory.  It is simply retelling a visit the author had with Joseph Smith, in which Joseph and his mother made some claims about the ancient Egyptian artifacts which, at the time and until recently, were not in the least bit controversial (although they were unique and probably a little surprising).  The claims made by Joseph Smith in the OP are only slightly more specific and unusual than the claims published by the Church to this day regarding The Book of Abraham.

The hypothetical was an answer to your question.

You asked a specific question about evidence and proof.  I told you:  If I was going to show that God is no longer a part of the Catholic Church because if He were, Catholic Popes and Bishops would have cared more about the abused kids, I should be expected to show support.  I would be expected to show references and that people I quoted were accurate....agreed?

[cinepro]

5 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

The hypothetical was an answer to your question.

You asked a specific question about evidence and proof.  I told you:  If I was going to show that God is no longer a part of the Catholic Church because if He were, Catholic Popes and Bishops would have cared more about the abused kids, I should be expected to show support.  I would be expected to show references and that people I quoted were accurate....agreed?

Okay...if you were to produce a quote from a visitor to the Vatican from 1842 in which he recalled a conversation where the Pope mentioned that there was a huge problem with child abuse in the Church, and that recollection was subsequently published in the 1880s, what kind of verification would you expect from yourself before believing that quote?

Edited July 12, 2016 by cinepro

[UtahTexan]

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

No we can't. We don't have full original transcripts. Who knows what kind of changes have been made where the original's have been lost.

I disagree....I know we have Printer's Manuscript.  We certainly have enough.

[UtahTexan]

2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Okay...if you were to produce a quote from a visitor to the Vatican from 1842 in which he recalled a conversation in which the Pope mentioned that there was a huge problem with child abuse in the Church, and that recollection was subsequently published in the 1880s, what kind of verification would you expect from yourself before believing that quote?

I would not use it, or I would use and say, "this is all we have, it cannot be verified, but here it is".

If asked for reference, I would say, I have none and I cannot verify it's veracity.

Unless, we have the actual manuscript from 1842...then the issue is moot.

Of course, we do not have that problem with this since it did not happen in the 1800s....oh...maybe it did, but not like the current stuff.

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

10 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

I disagree....I know we have Printer's Manuscript.  We certainly have enough.

I was not talking about the Bible.  The LDS Scriptures, we can.

I don't want to exaggerate your "Standard of Printed Evidence" policy so help me understand...before you will accept any printed evidence as authoritative...you first require the source in its original format so that it can be compared against the printed copy? Did I get that right?

Edited July 12, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[UtahTexan]

10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I don't want to exaggerate your "Standard of Printed Evidence" policy so help me understand...before you will accept any printed evidence as authoritative...you first require the source in its original format so that it can be compared against the printed copy? Did I get that right?

nope....

Stop trying to generalize and deflect

The OP made a claim.  I requested proof it had never been altered over the years.  No one, including you, has shown they can provide the proof.  I am ok with that.  Y'all have tried to deflect, dodge, shift burdens, compare etc.  But all that did was show that you will go to great lengths to avoid saying the accuracy cannot be proven.  That is sufficient for me.  Thanks!

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

ah....but we can show the changes and the changes can be verified...nice deflect, but wrong again

Pure desperation. 

 

[UtahTexan]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Pure desperation. 

 

lol...do not confuse your inability with any desperation...but I love that you resorted to that.....again...makes me happy

[Teancum]

1 minute ago, CountryBoy said:

lol...do not confuse your inability with any desperation...but I love that you resorted to that.....again...makes me happy

I see you struggle with reading comprehension. 

[Johnnie Cake]

8 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

nope....

Stop trying to generalize and deflect

The OP made a claim.  I requested proof it had never been altered over the years.  No one, including you, has shown they can provide the proof.  I am ok with that.  Y'all have tried to deflect, dodge, shift burdens, compare etc.  But all that did was show that you will go to great lengths to avoid saying the accuracy cannot be proven.  That is sufficient for me.  Thanks!

I'm just trying to understand... but I don't think without the original diary pages in hand anyone can meet your expectations....on basically any printed word.  But there is the expectation of accuracy. We even have the word of the author claiming to have made every attempt from his original notes to give an accurate picture of the events of his visit.  While I understand the need to be skeptical and to not take everything at face value...I don't think anything has been presented to undermine the credibility of Quincy's memoirs. But I'll leave you alone. Have a nice evening.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[UtahTexan]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'm just trying to understand... but I don't think without the original diary pages in hand anyone can meet your expectations....on basically any printed word.  But there is the expectation of accuracy. We even have the word of the author claiming to have made every attempt from his original notes to give an accurate picture of the events of his visit.  While I understand the need to be skeptical and to not take everything at face value...I don't think anything has been presented to undermine the credibility of Quincy's memoirs. But I'll leave you alone. Have a nice evening.

Thanks!  And thanks for admitting you cannot substantiate the quote

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Thanks!  And thanks for admitting you cannot substantiate the quote

He might have substantiated it with the spirit, just like you and others substantiate the gospel.

[UtahTexan]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

He might have substantiated it with the spirit, just like you and others substantiate the gospel.

maybe...but he never claimed that....nice try at a save.  I admire the fact help was desperately needed and you gave it.  

but thanks for admitting the Spirit can help us

[Glenn101]

8 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Threads on this board sometimes seem to fall apart into a back and forth territorial defense of ones worldview rather than actually addressing the questions made in the OP.  Could someone please address the question I asked in my OP? 

This question goes to the very credibility of Smith's other claims.  He seems to make things up, put a biblical spin on them and then passes them off as truth.  There is a pattern of him doing this in his life.  Does it not put a question mark on any of his other truth claims to anyone or am I the only one?

Am I just supposed to ignore this?  How does a believer discount this event?  I’m seriously interested in understanding.

Johnny,

   As I mentioned in my first response, you are not quoting Joseph Smith. You are quoting what someone else has said that Joseph said. I have already pointed out a few problems with that account. You made no response to the problem with the price paid for the mummies and papyri the source of the money. It may be that Joseph lied to Josiah about the cost of the artifacts and the source of the money. Or it could be that Josiah did not record the information accurately. Or it could be that it is something with which he embellished his story. We do not know. 

We do not know if Quincy recorded his journal entries contemporaneously with his visit, or did so at some later date. As I have noted in another post, we currently do not have access to the journals from which this information was derived, so the dates cannot be ascertained. All we know is that the book was composed in 1882 and published posthumously. The accuracy of some of the statements are not corroborated.

But I would ask how you know that one of those mummies was not that of Pharaoh Necho?

Thanks,

Glenn

[UtahTexan]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I see you struggle with reading comprehension. 

I am not the one who deflects and feels the need to bash the beliefs of others.

lol....but you amuse me

[Thinking]

The standard apologetic strategies are abundant in this thread.

1. Attack the source.

2. Justify/explain.

3. Ignore evidence because of a spiritual confirmation that Joseph Smith is a prophet.

4. Prophets aren't perfect.

[Jeanne]

39 minutes ago, Thinking said:

The standard apologetic strategies are abundant in this thread.

1. Attack the source.

2. Justify/explain.

3. Ignore evidence because of a spiritual confirmation that Joseph Smith is a prophet.

4. Prophets aren't perfect.

You hit the nail on the head here. 

[UtahTexan]

41 minutes ago, Thinking said:

The standard apologetic strategies are abundant in this thread.

1. Attack the source.

Asking for reference is not attacking.  Unless you are the one who likes the quote, so any request for reference you cannot provide is considered an attack

2. Justify/explain. 

There have been no justifications.  Only Glenn showing the fallacy  Again, I can see why those who dislike the Church would not like that

 

41 minutes ago, Thinking said:

3. Ignore evidence because of a spiritual confirmation that Joseph Smith is a prophet.

Hard to ignore something that cannot be substantiated...another desperate attempt to deflect from the inability to support the negativity.

4. Prophets aren't perfect.

Well, that is the truth.  Thank you for showing us you understand that

 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

I am not the one who deflects and feels the need to bash the beliefs of others.

lol....but you amuse me

Really?  You bash my beliefs that certain alleged relations from JS were not from God.   You bash other Christian sects by accepting LDS claims as truth.    You bash. Most who disagree with you by stating they prove your fantastical claims as false.   

it is really quite simple.

Poster removed