NT Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon

[Markk]

Hi Wade,

It's clear you can't discuss my view or answer any of the points I brought to the table. It's clear that you are trying to hide behind some sort of defense mechinism that says "if I can't give a answer I'll just pretend I'm superior', it's clear as day what your analogy was about. But, Wade, until you can be honest with yourself, you can never see who and what JS was and did. Right or wrong, the points I bring are real, with back up and deserve discussion.

Take care Wade,

Mark

John 1:12

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

It's clear you can't discuss my view or answer any of the points I brought to the table. It's clear that you are trying to hide behind some sort of defense mechinism that says "if I can't give a answer I'll just pretend I'm superior', it's clear as day what your analogy was about. But, Wade, until you can be honest with yourself, you can never see who and what JS was and did. Right or wrong, the points I bring are real, with back up and deserve discussion.

Take care Wade,

Mark

John 1:12

Hi Markk,

Your post made me chuckle, and for that I am grateful.

In fact, I found it deserving of due recognition, which I have given here

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Markk]

Hi Wade,

Again you have failed to address my points, and it's clear you can't. I wasn't saying you were a dishonest person, I said you weren

[wenglund]

I would love to discuss this more when your ready to, if it make you fell better I

[Markk]

Hi Wade,

You have turned my view into a discussion of my intelligence, thats Ok, I understand. I told you I didn't understand your interprtation of your analogy and asked you to explain it, you for what ever reason don't want to. So if you don't want to explain your analogy fine, maybe some one else here can tell me what you meant. But, I did see a hint of a topic pertaining conversation to my view in your last post, please expound how JS contreversy's compare to Christ's, that would be as good as place as any to start.

Mark

John 1:12

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

You have turned my view into a discussion of my intelligence, thats Ok, I understand.

Hi Markk,

Your comments are increasingly becoming "Twilight Zone"ish

[Markk]

Hi Wade,

LOL...OK, Im a ignorant twilite zone"ish Pharisees, so then why is my position wrong? Geez, I feel like I have to say " I know you are but what am I".

Love ya

Mark

John 1:12

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

LOL...OK, Im a ignorant twilite zone"ish Pharisees, so then why is my position wrong?

For starters, SEE my innitial post on this thread.

If that escapes you, then SEE my parable or analogy (including my explanation of what the analogy does NOT say), and additional explanations.

If that escapes you (for Pharasiac reasons), SEE my several hints and accompanying additional explanations.

If that escapes you (for Pharasiac reasons), then SEE the two simple and straitforward questions that I asked.

If that escapes you (for Pharasiac reasons), then SEE the hints that I gave for the answer to the first simple and straightforward question.

If that escapes you (for Pharasiac reasons), then SEE the last hint I gave, which eliminated all the other possible answers, leaving only the correct answer.

If that escapes you (for Pharasiac reasons), then we are affectively left without means for having a productive conversation on this topic--not because I am unwilling or incapable of dicussing it with you, but because you are incapable of grasping (for Pharasiac reasons) what I have said.

If that escapes you, this affectively puts us in one of those endless, time-wasting, counterproductive, "Twighlight Zone"ish cycles where you continue to ask me to respond to what you have said, and I continue to point out where I have, in fact, responded, but that you didn't understand what I said, and you feel to say "I know you are, but what am I", and so on and so forth...

...that is, unless I extricate myself from this nonsense.

I do so here and now (and once again) by saying goodbye.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Dale]

Hi,

The groundwork Mark laid out for the first vision in an earlier post interested me. If Joseph Smith Jr. or his family was satisfied with the religions of the day then the First Vision would have been far different. I am not sure all visions of God should be subscribed to imagination.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Markk]

Hi Wade,

OK Wade, feel free to jump in at any time.

Mark

John 1:12

[Markk]

Hi Dale,

Did you get my e-mail I sent you awhile back?

You said"...The groundwork Mark laid out for the first vision in an earlier post interested me. If Joseph Smith Jr. or his family was satisfied with the religions of the day then the First Vision would have been far different. I am not sure all visions of God should be subscribed to imagination."

Everything kind of fits together when you see his family history and his personality portrayed. His father was a teacher and not as ignorant as portrayed, teachers usually encourage their children to learn, granted it was a time when he could have been the best available, but none the less he wasn

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

OK Wade, feel free to jump in at any time.

Mark

John 1:12

Hello wall! ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Dale]

Mark,

I got your e-mail. I guess my last reply to you didn't get through.

I don't see Joseph Smith Jr. as a fraud. I don't agree that his revelations are myth. If Joseph Smith Jr. was into accepting traditional Christendom's beliefs he couldn't have honestly approached asking God whether Christianity was fallen or not.

Have you bought Echoes & Evidences of the Book of Mormon yet? I don't think you know how complecated the Book of Mormon was. There's internal evidences of the Book of Mormon that rivals anything I have seen with regards to the Bible. So I have reasons to believe in the Book of Mormon.

I have studied some naturalistic influences on Mormonism origins & feel a case can be made in support of your position. But after reading pro-Book of Mormon scholarship I felt a total naturalistic explanation for Mormonism didn't work for me. And I buy the best Signature Book's produces towards supporting that excuse not to believe traditionalist points of view & am not convinced naturalistic explanations work for me. I feel that next to Signature Book's Zondervan & the Tanners presented the next toughest criticisms.

To get back to New Testament Anacronisms I read a critic a week aho that said Joseph Smith Jr. stole 27,000 words from the King James Bible. To me that either takes a perfect photo-graphic memory, or a well marked up Bible. And then his scribes didn't see him consulting the Bible all of the time. I feel any memory of King Jame's Bible verses was the product of inspiration not plagiarism. The Book of Mormon is a complex book & I know of no book next to the Bible that matches it's level of complexity. The book Echoes & Evidences of the Book of Mormon lays out a case that I have seen only nitpicks at this or that proof LDS scolars have raised. But I am aware of no book written by critics that weakens the basic conclusions in the book. FARMs sells it & everybody should get a copy of it.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Markk]

Hi Dale,

I haven't read the book you referenced, what would be the hardest evedences in the book that makes it a complex book? As far as the 27.000 words from the KJ, I don't know how you would determine that, or how many words are repeated to comment on, but exactly how and when JS offically wrote the BOM has controversies it's self, and if he did write the book as I believe, then the offical story would be made up anyway, and his scribes, or some of his scribes could and would have been in on it anyway. I believe Oliver, as well as Rigdon, were in on it. I believe Harris was a pawn, and used to finance it and the Witmeres were taken advatage of and truly believed JS. All these point to a very plausable and believable way the BOM may have come to be.

What do you think about the idea that the position I present explains the controversies plauged through out his ministry?

And again what makes it such a complex work?

Mark

John 1:12