England

[Michael Sherwin]

I don't come to this place very often anymore. I did not realize this thread was still actively posted to. There is at least one person that deliberated upon all the evidence that I presented and sent me a pm that they thought that I was correct. People do not like to be bullied and therefore will not come out in support for the evidence that I have presented. But if there is one that has believed then there are more. Every detail of the land and the Roman historical record matches the clues in the BOM. Even the archeological record of iron working and chariots match the BOM times. Even the tribes north of Hadrian's wall match the description of the Lamanites. The river Clyde matches perfectly with the river Sidon. There is correlation upon correlation upon correlation and none of the naysayers will even address or discuss them. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF IRON WORKING IN THE AMERICAS PRIOR TO THE TIME THE FIRST EUROPEAN SETTLERS ARRIVED. The naysayers deny my last sentence. I prove them wrong. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. I don't know what is worse. People that won't consider the evidence or people that do but won't come forward and put their reputation on the line.

Your position does solve one issue, for me at least.
Moroni asking "why have ye polluted the holy church of God" makes more sense in an 400AD British setting.

Yes, I imagine that by 400 AD Catholic Missionaries were already making inroads into Roman controlled areas in Britain and beyond into non Roman controlled areas. I wonder if that is what Moroni might have been referring too. I appreciate your open minded response!

[Luke]

I don't come to this place very often anymore. I did not realize this thread was still actively posted to. There is at least one person that deliberated upon all the evidence that I presented and sent me a pm that they thought that I was correct. People do not like to be bullied and therefore will not come out in support for the evidence that I have presented. But if there is one that has believed then there are more. Every detail of the land and the Roman historical record matches the clues in the BOM. Even the archeological record of iron working and chariots match the BOM times. Even the tribes north of Hadrian's wall match the description of the Lamanites. The river Clyde matches perfectly with the river Sidon. There is correlation upon correlation upon correlation and none of the naysayers will even address or discuss them. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF IRON WORKING IN THE AMERICAS PRIOR TO THE TIME THE FIRST EUROPEAN SETTLERS ARRIVED. The naysayers deny my last sentence. I prove them wrong. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. I don't know what is worse. People that won't consider the evidence or people that do but won't come forward and put their reputation on the line.

How did the Gold Plates get to Cumorah? And why did Joseph Smith say it took place in the Americas?

Luke, You are proving my point. That has been explained more than once. It was explained in the OP. You are not bothering to investigate the evidence. From the OP.

There are also legends of a great treasure being taken from England and hidden in the Northeast part of the US. Movies have been made about those legends.

What about my second question?

[Michael Sherwin]

I don't come to this place very often anymore. I did not realize this thread was still actively posted to. There is at least one person that deliberated upon all the evidence that I presented and sent me a pm that they thought that I was correct. People do not like to be bullied and therefore will not come out in support for the evidence that I have presented. But if there is one that has believed then there are more. Every detail of the land and the Roman historical record matches the clues in the BOM. Even the archeological record of iron working and chariots match the BOM times. Even the tribes north of Hadrian's wall match the description of the Lamanites. The river Clyde matches perfectly with the river Sidon. There is correlation upon correlation upon correlation and none of the naysayers will even address or discuss them. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF IRON WORKING IN THE AMERICAS PRIOR TO THE TIME THE FIRST EUROPEAN SETTLERS ARRIVED. The naysayers deny my last sentence. I prove them wrong. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. I don't know what is worse. People that won't consider the evidence or people that do but won't come forward and put their reputation on the line.

How did the Gold Plates get to Cumorah? And why did Joseph Smith say it took place in the Americas?

Luke, You are proving my point. That has been explained more than once. It was explained in the OP. You are not bothering to investigate the evidence. From the OP.

There are also legends of a great treasure being taken from England and hidden in the Northeast part of the US. Movies have been made about those legends.

What about my second question?

Your second question is far more contentious and I have also answered that as well, more than once. I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly. I'm not going to be bated in creating, recreating, the situation that brings contention down upon myself. David Whitmer answered your second question in his book. If one does not believe David Whitmer one is not going to believe me.

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/address1.htm

[Luke]

How did the Gold Plates get to Cumorah? And why did Joseph Smith say it took place in the Americas?

Luke, You are proving my point. That has been explained more than once. It was explained in the OP. You are not bothering to investigate the evidence. From the OP.

There are also legends of a great treasure being taken from England and hidden in the Northeast part of the US. Movies have been made about those legends.

What about my second question?

Your second question is far more contentious and I have also answered that as well, more than once. I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly. I'm not going to be bated in creating, recreating, the situation that brings contention down upon myself. David Whitmer answered your second question in his book. If one does not believe David Whitmer one is not going to believe me.

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/address1.htm

I'm not interested in arguing, I just want you to answer the question instead of making me scroll through a whole book.

[Zathura]

Wait, so the idea is that the Book of Mormon actually happened in England?

After 2 seconds of entertaining this idea I thought of 1 Nephi 13.

Someone go ahead and give me an alternate interpretation of the events in that chapter

[Michael Sherwin]

Wait, so the idea is that the Book of Mormon actually happened in England?

After 2 seconds of entertaining this idea I thought of 1 Nephi 13.

Someone go ahead and give me an alternate interpretation of the events in that chapter

It boils down to the BOM land is not the same as the land of promise. The BOM land is an isle in the sea where lived other kinsmen of Lehi that had migrated there before Lehi did. The land of promise is a land that the remnant of Nephi's seed would would one day travel to. The definition of bible is any tomb that is considered scripture. The BOM is a bible. When the remnant comes to the land of promise they will bring forth a bible. It was a book that originally came forth from the mouth of a Jew. Consider this future prophecy.

13:12 And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, which was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth among the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, which were in the promised land.

The writer is talking about a land separate from the land that he was in. He was in the BOM land speaking of a different land that he calls the promised land. Read on. The wrath of God comes upon the "seed of my brethren" in the future promised land. It is in the promised land where a great church is founded.

13:5 And the angel said unto me, Behold the foundation of a church, which is most abominable above all churches, which slayeth the Saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.

13:6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil, that he was the founder of it.

And that should tell you everything you need to know if you have the eyes to see. The remnant will come out of this church founded by the devil. The remnant will build Zion. You might still hold the belief that the great and abominable church is the Roman Catholic church. The great and abominable church starts in the land of promise and spreads across the waters to other nations almost as soon as it is founded. That is in the BOM. The Catholic church started in Rome and did not spread to other nations for hundreds of years. You are going to have to put two and two together. I'm not going to try and do it for you.

13:28 wherefore, thou seest that after the Book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the Book, which is the Book of the Lamb of God;

The book that goes forth from the great and abominable church is not the KLV because the Catholic church is not the great and abominable church. But this church that brought forth the book is holding back, "many plain and precious things taken away from the Book, which is the Book of the Lamb of God". And because of this, "Satan hath great power over them". But, the Lamb of God will bring forth that which was withheld.

13:34 And it came to pass that the angel of the Lord spake unto me, saying: Behold, saith the Lamb of God, after that I have visited the remnant of the House of Israel, and this remnant of which I speak, is the seed of thy father; wherefore, after that I have visited them in judgment, and smitten them by the hand of the Gentiles; and after that the Gentiles do stumble exceedingly, because of the most plain and precious parts of the Gospel of the Lamb which hath been kept back, by that abominable church, which is the mother of harlots, saith the Lamb; wherefore, I will be merciful unto the Gentiles in that day, saith the Lamb, insomuch that I will bring forth unto them in mine own power, much of my Gospel, which shall be plain and precious, saith the Lamb;

13:35 for behold, saith the Lamb, I will manifest myself unto thy seed, that they shall write many things which I shall minister unto them, which shall be plain and precious; and after that thy seed shall be destroyed and dwindle in unbelief, and also, the seed of thy brethren; behold, these things shall be hid up, to come forth unto the Gentiles, by the gift and power of the Lamb;

13:36 and in them shall be written my Gospel, saith the Lamb, and my rock and my salvation;

It is only then that the remnant will bring forth Zion.

13:37 and blessed are they which shall seek to bring forth my Zion at that day, for they shall have the gift and the power of the Holy Ghost; and if they endure unto the end, they shall be lifted up at the last day, and shall be saved in the Everlasting Kingdom of the Lamb; yea, whoso shall publish peace, that shall publish tidings of great joy, how beautiful upon the mountains shall they be.

[Michael Sherwin]

Luke, You are proving my point. That has been explained more than once. It was explained in the OP. You are not bothering to investigate the evidence. From the OP.

What about my second question?

Your second question is far more contentious and I have also answered that as well, more than once. I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly. I'm not going to be bated in creating, recreating, the situation that brings contention down upon myself. David Whitmer answered your second question in his book. If one does not believe David Whitmer one is not going to believe me.

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/address1.htm

I'm not interested in arguing, I just want you to answer the question instead of making me scroll through a whole book.

But you want me to do the work for you. So be it.

Brother Hyrum said it had been suggested to him that some of the brethren might go to Toronto, Canada, and sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon for considerable money: and he persuaded Joseph to inquire of the Lord about it. Joseph concluded to do so. He had not yet given up the stone. Joseph looked into the hat in which he placed the stone, and received a revelation that some of the brethren should go to Toronto, Canada, and that they would sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon. Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery went to Toronto on this mission, but they failed entirely to sell the copy-right, returning without any money. Joseph was at my father's house when they returned. I was there also, and am an eye witness to these facts. Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada. Well, we were all in great trouble; and we asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord for some brethren to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right, and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking. Joseph did not know how it was, so he enquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone: "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil." So we see that the revelation to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right was not of God, but was of the devil or of the heart of man. When a man enquires of the Lord concerning a matter, if he is deceived by his own carnal desires, and is in error, he will receive an answer according to his erring heart, but it will not be a revelation from the Lord.

Now is it wisdom to put your trust in Joseph Smith, and believe all his revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants to be of God? Every one who does not desire to be of Paul, or of Apollos, or of Joseph, but desires to be of Christ will say that it is not wisdom to put our trust in him and believe his revelations as if from God's own mouth! I will say here, that I could tell you other false revelations that came through Brother Joseph as mouthpiece, (not through the stone) but this will suffice. Many of Brother Joseph's revelations were never printed. The revelation to go to Canada was written down on paper, but was never printed. When Brother Joseph was humble he had the Spirit of God with him; but when he was not humble he did not have the Spirit.

After the translation of the Book of Mormon was finished, early in the spring of 1830, before April 6th, Joseph gave the stone to Oliver Cowdery and told me as well as the rest that he was through with it, and he did not use the stone any more. He said he was through the work that God had given him the gift to perform, except to preach the gospel. He told us that we would all have to depend on the Holy Ghost hereafter to be guided into truth and obtain the will of the Lord. The revelations after this came through Joseph as "mouth piece;" that is, he would enquire of the Lord, pray and ask concerning a matter, and speak out the revelation, which he thought to be a revelation from the Lord; but sometimes he was mistaken about it being the word of the Lord. As we have seen, some revelations are of God and some are not. In this manner, through Brother Joseph as "mouth piece" came every revelation to establish new doctrines and offices which disagree with the New Covenant in the Book of Mormon and New Testament! I would have you to remember this fact.

It says after this, "by the will and commandments of God;" but this revelation came through Bro. Joseph as "mouthpiece." Now brethren, how can it be that the church was any more organized — spiritually — on April 6th, than it was before that time? There were six elders and about seventy members before April 6th, and the same number of elders and members after that day. We attended to our business of organizing, according to the laws of the land, the church acknowledging us six elders as their ministers; besides, a few who had recently been baptized and not confirmed were confirmed on that day; some blessings were pronounced, and we partook of the Lord's supper.

I do not consider that the church was any more organized or established in the eyes of God on that day than it was previous to that day. I consider that on that day the first error was introduced into the Church of Christ, and that error was Brother Joseph being ordained as "Prophet Seer and Revelator" to the church.

Joseph Smith's mission from God was done when he finished the BOM. The Church of April 6th 1830 was solely based on the BOM. It is after that the present day Church was founded. It was founded by adding multitudes of false doctrines.

13:6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil, that he was the founder of it.

[Zathura]

Wait, so the idea is that the Book of Mormon actually happened in England?

After 2 seconds of entertaining this idea I thought of 1 Nephi 13.

Someone go ahead and give me an alternate interpretation of the events in that chapter

It boils down to the BOM land is not the same as the land of promise. The BOM land is an isle in the sea where lived other kinsmen of Lehi that had migrated there before Lehi did. The land of promise is a land that the remnant of Nephi's seed would would one day travel to. The definition of bible is any tomb that is considered scripture. The BOM is a bible. When the remnant comes to the land of promise they will bring forth a bible. It was a book that originally came forth from the mouth of a Jew. Consider this future prophecy.

13:12 And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, which was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth among the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, which were in the promised land.

The writer is talking about a land separate from the land that he was in. He was in the BOM land speaking of a different land that he calls the promised land. Read on. The wrath of God comes upon the "seed of my brethren" in the future promised land. It is in the promised land where a great church is founded.

13:5 And the angel said unto me, Behold the foundation of a church, which is most abominable above all churches, which slayeth the Saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.

13:6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil, that he was the founder of it.

And that should tell you everything you need to know if you have the eyes to see. The remnant will come out of this church founded by the devil. The remnant will build Zion. You might still hold the belief that the great and abominable church is the Roman Catholic church. The great and abominable church starts in the land of promise and spreads across the waters to other nations almost as soon as it is founded. That is in the BOM. The Catholic church started in Rome and did not spread to other nations for hundreds of years. You are going to have to put two and two together. I'm not going to try and do it for you.

13:28 wherefore, thou seest that after the Book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the Book, which is the Book of the Lamb of God;

The book that goes forth from the great and abominable church is not the KLV because the Catholic church is not the great and abominable church. But this church that brought forth the book is holding back, "many plain and precious things taken away from the Book, which is the Book of the Lamb of God". And because of this, "Satan hath great power over them". But, the Lamb of God will bring forth that which was withheld.

13:34 And it came to pass that the angel of the Lord spake unto me, saying: Behold, saith the Lamb of God, after that I have visited the remnant of the House of Israel, and this remnant of which I speak, is the seed of thy father; wherefore, after that I have visited them in judgment, and smitten them by the hand of the Gentiles; and after that the Gentiles do stumble exceedingly, because of the most plain and precious parts of the Gospel of the Lamb which hath been kept back, by that abominable church, which is the mother of harlots, saith the Lamb; wherefore, I will be merciful unto the Gentiles in that day, saith the Lamb, insomuch that I will bring forth unto them in mine own power, much of my Gospel, which shall be plain and precious, saith the Lamb;

13:35 for behold, saith the Lamb, I will manifest myself unto thy seed, that they shall write many things which I shall minister unto them, which shall be plain and precious; and after that thy seed shall be destroyed and dwindle in unbelief, and also, the seed of thy brethren; behold, these things shall be hid up, to come forth unto the Gentiles, by the gift and power of the Lamb;

13:36 and in them shall be written my Gospel, saith the Lamb, and my rock and my salvation;

It is only then that the remnant will bring forth Zion.

13:37 and blessed are they which shall seek to bring forth my Zion at that day, for they shall have the gift and the power of the Holy Ghost; and if they endure unto the end, they shall be lifted up at the last day, and shall be saved in the Everlasting Kingdom of the Lamb; yea, whoso shall publish peace, that shall publish tidings of great joy, how beautiful upon the mountains shall they be.

So Lehi and fam were in England, they had visions of North America where the Mormon Church is the Abominable Church that spread throughout the world, from which the book(of Mormon) came, and that same church held back things from that book? This is what you’re saying?

[Michael Sherwin]

Wait, so the idea is that the Book of Mormon actually happened in England?

After 2 seconds of entertaining this idea I thought of 1 Nephi 13.

Someone go ahead and give me an alternate interpretation of the events in that chapter

It boils down to the BOM land is not the same as the land of promise. The BOM land is an isle in the sea where lived other kinsmen of Lehi that had migrated there before Lehi did. The land of promise is a land that the remnant of Nephi's seed would would one day travel to. The definition of bible is any tomb that is considered scripture. The BOM is a bible. When the remnant comes to the land of promise they will bring forth a bible. It was a book that originally came forth from the mouth of a Jew. Consider this future prophecy.

13:12 And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, which was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth among the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, which were in the promised land.

The writer is talking about a land separate from the land that he was in. He was in the BOM land speaking of a different land that he calls the promised land. Read on. The wrath of God comes upon the "seed of my brethren" in the future promised land. It is in the promised land where a great church is founded.

13:5 And the angel said unto me, Behold the foundation of a church, which is most abominable above all churches, which slayeth the Saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.

13:6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil, that he was the founder of it.

And that should tell you everything you need to know if you have the eyes to see. The remnant will come out of this church founded by the devil. The remnant will build Zion. You might still hold the belief that the great and abominable church is the Roman Catholic church. The great and abominable church starts in the land of promise and spreads across the waters to other nations almost as soon as it is founded. That is in the BOM. The Catholic church started in Rome and did not spread to other nations for hundreds of years. You are going to have to put two and two together. I'm not going to try and do it for you.

13:28 wherefore, thou seest that after the Book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the Book, which is the Book of the Lamb of God;

The book that goes forth from the great and abominable church is not the KLV because the Catholic church is not the great and abominable church. But this church that brought forth the book is holding back, "many plain and precious things taken away from the Book, which is the Book of the Lamb of God". And because of this, "Satan hath great power over them". But, the Lamb of God will bring forth that which was withheld.

13:34 And it came to pass that the angel of the Lord spake unto me, saying: Behold, saith the Lamb of God, after that I have visited the remnant of the House of Israel, and this remnant of which I speak, is the seed of thy father; wherefore, after that I have visited them in judgment, and smitten them by the hand of the Gentiles; and after that the Gentiles do stumble exceedingly, because of the most plain and precious parts of the Gospel of the Lamb which hath been kept back, by that abominable church, which is the mother of harlots, saith the Lamb; wherefore, I will be merciful unto the Gentiles in that day, saith the Lamb, insomuch that I will bring forth unto them in mine own power, much of my Gospel, which shall be plain and precious, saith the Lamb;

13:35 for behold, saith the Lamb, I will manifest myself unto thy seed, that they shall write many things which I shall minister unto them, which shall be plain and precious; and after that thy seed shall be destroyed and dwindle in unbelief, and also, the seed of thy brethren; behold, these things shall be hid up, to come forth unto the Gentiles, by the gift and power of the Lamb;

13:36 and in them shall be written my Gospel, saith the Lamb, and my rock and my salvation;

It is only then that the remnant will bring forth Zion.

13:37 and blessed are they which shall seek to bring forth my Zion at that day, for they shall have the gift and the power of the Holy Ghost; and if they endure unto the end, they shall be lifted up at the last day, and shall be saved in the Everlasting Kingdom of the Lamb; yea, whoso shall publish peace, that shall publish tidings of great joy, how beautiful upon the mountains shall they be.

So Lehi and fam were in England, they had visions of North America where the Mormon Church is the Abominable Church that spread throughout the world, from which the book(of Mormon) came, and that same church held back things from that book? This is what you’re saying?

That is what the Book of Mormon is saying.

[Zathura]

Wait, so the idea is that the Book of Mormon actually happened in England?

After 2 seconds of entertaining this idea I thought of 1 Nephi 13.

Someone go ahead and give me an alternate interpretation of the events in that chapter

It boils down to the BOM land is not the same as the land of promise. The BOM land is an isle in the sea where lived other kinsmen of Lehi that had migrated there before Lehi did. The land of promise is a land that the remnant of Nephi's seed would would one day travel to. The definition of bible is any tomb that is considered scripture. The BOM is a bible. When the remnant comes to the land of promise they will bring forth a bible. It was a book that originally came forth from the mouth of a Jew. Consider this future prophecy.

13:12 And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, which was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth among the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, which were in the promised land.

The writer is talking about a land separate from the land that he was in. He was in the BOM land speaking of a different land that he calls the promised land. Read on. The wrath of God comes upon the "seed of my brethren" in the future promised land. It is in the promised land where a great church is founded.

13:5 And the angel said unto me, Behold the foundation of a church, which is most abominable above all churches, which slayeth the Saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.

13:6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil, that he was the founder of it.

And that should tell you everything you need to know if you have the eyes to see. The remnant will come out of this church founded by the devil. The remnant will build Zion. You might still hold the belief that the great and abominable church is the Roman Catholic church. The great and abominable church starts in the land of promise and spreads across the waters to other nations almost as soon as it is founded. That is in the BOM. The Catholic church started in Rome and did not spread to other nations for hundreds of years. You are going to have to put two and two together. I'm not going to try and do it for you.

13:28 wherefore, thou seest that after the Book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the Book, which is the Book of the Lamb of God;

The book that goes forth from the great and abominable church is not the KLV because the Catholic church is not the great and abominable church. But this church that brought forth the book is holding back, "many plain and precious things taken away from the Book, which is the Book of the Lamb of God". And because of this, "Satan hath great power over them". But, the Lamb of God will bring forth that which was withheld.

13:34 And it came to pass that the angel of the Lord spake unto me, saying: Behold, saith the Lamb of God, after that I have visited the remnant of the House of Israel, and this remnant of which I speak, is the seed of thy father; wherefore, after that I have visited them in judgment, and smitten them by the hand of the Gentiles; and after that the Gentiles do stumble exceedingly, because of the most plain and precious parts of the Gospel of the Lamb which hath been kept back, by that abominable church, which is the mother of harlots, saith the Lamb; wherefore, I will be merciful unto the Gentiles in that day, saith the Lamb, insomuch that I will bring forth unto them in mine own power, much of my Gospel, which shall be plain and precious, saith the Lamb;

13:35 for behold, saith the Lamb, I will manifest myself unto thy seed, that they shall write many things which I shall minister unto them, which shall be plain and precious; and after that thy seed shall be destroyed and dwindle in unbelief, and also, the seed of thy brethren; behold, these things shall be hid up, to come forth unto the Gentiles, by the gift and power of the Lamb;

13:36 and in them shall be written my Gospel, saith the Lamb, and my rock and my salvation;

It is only then that the remnant will bring forth Zion.

13:37 and blessed are they which shall seek to bring forth my Zion at that day, for they shall have the gift and the power of the Holy Ghost; and if they endure unto the end, they shall be lifted up at the last day, and shall be saved in the Everlasting Kingdom of the Lamb; yea, whoso shall publish peace, that shall publish tidings of great joy, how beautiful upon the mountains shall they be.

So Lehi and fam were in England, they had visions of North America where the Mormon Church is the Abominable Church that spread throughout the world, from which the book(of Mormon) came, and that same church held back things from that book? This is what you’re saying?

That is what the Book of Mormon is saying.

Okay, but before you said that Parley P Pratt was the source of the theology in the Book of Mormon. I showed you that this simply couldn’t be the case, which you never really acknowledged.

So now I’m confused.

It seems you’re now saying the Book of Mormon is a Holy Book, no longer a book whose theology comes from Pratt?

[nightlight]

It boils down to the BOM land is not the same as the land of promise. The BOM land is an isle in the sea where lived other kinsmen of Lehi that had migrated there before Lehi did. The land of promise is a land that the remnant of Nephi's seed would would one day travel to. The definition of bible is any tomb that is considered scripture. The BOM is a bible. When the remnant comes to the land of promise they will bring forth a bible. It was a book that originally came forth from the mouth of a Jew. Consider this future prophecy.

13:12 And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, which was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth among the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, which were in the promised land.

The writer is talking about a land separate from the land that he was in. He was in the BOM land speaking of a different land that he calls the promised land. Read on. The wrath of God comes upon the "seed of my brethren" in the future promised land. It is in the promised land where a great church is founded.

13:5 And the angel said unto me, Behold the foundation of a church, which is most abominable above all churches, which slayeth the Saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.

13:6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil, that he was the founder of it.

And that should tell you everything you need to know if you have the eyes to see. The remnant will come out of this church founded by the devil. The remnant will build Zion. You might still hold the belief that the great and abominable church is the Roman Catholic church. The great and abominable church starts in the land of promise and spreads across the waters to other nations almost as soon as it is founded. That is in the BOM. The Catholic church started in Rome and did not spread to other nations for hundreds of years. You are going to have to put two and two together. I'm not going to try and do it for you.

13:28 wherefore, thou seest that after the Book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the Book, which is the Book of the Lamb of God;

The book that goes forth from the great and abominable church is not the KLV because the Catholic church is not the great and abominable church. But this church that brought forth the book is holding back, "many plain and precious things taken away from the Book, which is the Book of the Lamb of God". And because of this, "Satan hath great power over them". But, the Lamb of God will bring forth that which was withheld.

13:34 And it came to pass that the angel of the Lord spake unto me, saying: Behold, saith the Lamb of God, after that I have visited the remnant of the House of Israel, and this remnant of which I speak, is the seed of thy father; wherefore, after that I have visited them in judgment, and smitten them by the hand of the Gentiles; and after that the Gentiles do stumble exceedingly, because of the most plain and precious parts of the Gospel of the Lamb which hath been kept back, by that abominable church, which is the mother of harlots, saith the Lamb; wherefore, I will be merciful unto the Gentiles in that day, saith the Lamb, insomuch that I will bring forth unto them in mine own power, much of my Gospel, which shall be plain and precious, saith the Lamb;

13:35 for behold, saith the Lamb, I will manifest myself unto thy seed, that they shall write many things which I shall minister unto them, which shall be plain and precious; and after that thy seed shall be destroyed and dwindle in unbelief, and also, the seed of thy brethren; behold, these things shall be hid up, to come forth unto the Gentiles, by the gift and power of the Lamb;

13:36 and in them shall be written my Gospel, saith the Lamb, and my rock and my salvation;

It is only then that the remnant will bring forth Zion.

13:37 and blessed are they which shall seek to bring forth my Zion at that day, for they shall have the gift and the power of the Holy Ghost; and if they endure unto the end, they shall be lifted up at the last day, and shall be saved in the Everlasting Kingdom of the Lamb; yea, whoso shall publish peace, that shall publish tidings of great joy, how beautiful upon the mountains shall they be.

So Lehi and fam were in England, they had visions of North America where the Mormon Church is the Abominable Church that spread throughout the world, from which the book(of Mormon) came, and that same church held back things from that book? This is what you’re saying?

That is what the Book of Mormon is saying.

Okay, but before you said that Parley P Pratt was the source of the theology in the Book of Mormon. I showed you that this simply couldn’t be the case, which you never really acknowledged.

So now I’m confused.

It seems you’re now saying the Book of Mormon is a Holy Book, no longer a book whose theology comes from Pratt?

This guy also claims to have killed people with only his thoughts......

Your discussion is in vain imo

[Michael Sherwin]

It boils down to the BOM land is not the same as the land of promise. The BOM land is an isle in the sea where lived other kinsmen of Lehi that had migrated there before Lehi did. The land of promise is a land that the remnant of Nephi's seed would would one day travel to. The definition of bible is any tomb that is considered scripture. The BOM is a bible. When the remnant comes to the land of promise they will bring forth a bible. It was a book that originally came forth from the mouth of a Jew. Consider this future prophecy.

13:12 And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, which was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth among the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, which were in the promised land.

The writer is talking about a land separate from the land that he was in. He was in the BOM land speaking of a different land that he calls the promised land. Read on. The wrath of God comes upon the "seed of my brethren" in the future promised land. It is in the promised land where a great church is founded.

13:5 And the angel said unto me, Behold the foundation of a church, which is most abominable above all churches, which slayeth the Saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.

13:6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil, that he was the founder of it.

And that should tell you everything you need to know if you have the eyes to see. The remnant will come out of this church founded by the devil. The remnant will build Zion. You might still hold the belief that the great and abominable church is the Roman Catholic church. The great and abominable church starts in the land of promise and spreads across the waters to other nations almost as soon as it is founded. That is in the BOM. The Catholic church started in Rome and did not spread to other nations for hundreds of years. You are going to have to put two and two together. I'm not going to try and do it for you.

13:28 wherefore, thou seest that after the Book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the Book, which is the Book of the Lamb of God;

The book that goes forth from the great and abominable church is not the KLV because the Catholic church is not the great and abominable church. But this church that brought forth the book is holding back, "many plain and precious things taken away from the Book, which is the Book of the Lamb of God". And because of this, "Satan hath great power over them". But, the Lamb of God will bring forth that which was withheld.

13:34 And it came to pass that the angel of the Lord spake unto me, saying: Behold, saith the Lamb of God, after that I have visited the remnant of the House of Israel, and this remnant of which I speak, is the seed of thy father; wherefore, after that I have visited them in judgment, and smitten them by the hand of the Gentiles; and after that the Gentiles do stumble exceedingly, because of the most plain and precious parts of the Gospel of the Lamb which hath been kept back, by that abominable church, which is the mother of harlots, saith the Lamb; wherefore, I will be merciful unto the Gentiles in that day, saith the Lamb, insomuch that I will bring forth unto them in mine own power, much of my Gospel, which shall be plain and precious, saith the Lamb;

13:35 for behold, saith the Lamb, I will manifest myself unto thy seed, that they shall write many things which I shall minister unto them, which shall be plain and precious; and after that thy seed shall be destroyed and dwindle in unbelief, and also, the seed of thy brethren; behold, these things shall be hid up, to come forth unto the Gentiles, by the gift and power of the Lamb;

13:36 and in them shall be written my Gospel, saith the Lamb, and my rock and my salvation;

It is only then that the remnant will bring forth Zion.

13:37 and blessed are they which shall seek to bring forth my Zion at that day, for they shall have the gift and the power of the Holy Ghost; and if they endure unto the end, they shall be lifted up at the last day, and shall be saved in the Everlasting Kingdom of the Lamb; yea, whoso shall publish peace, that shall publish tidings of great joy, how beautiful upon the mountains shall they be.

So Lehi and fam were in England, they had visions of North America where the Mormon Church is the Abominable Church that spread throughout the world, from which the book(of Mormon) came, and that same church held back things from that book? This is what you’re saying?

That is what the Book of Mormon is saying.

Okay, but before you said that Parley P Pratt was the source of the theology in the Book of Mormon. I showed you that this simply couldn’t be the case, which you never really acknowledged.

So now I’m confused.

It seems you’re now saying the Book of Mormon is a Holy Book, no longer a book whose theology comes from Pratt?

I will repeat what the Spirit revealed. And I will refrain from adding anything of my own. At the time that I joined the Church I was at the house of the man that was witnessing to me. He had me watch a movie. In the movie a man comes walking out a door onto the street. I had no knowledge of who the man was. It was the first time he appeared on screen. The spirit clearly said to me, "that man is the source of the theology that is in the Book of Mormon". That man turned out to be the character representing Sidney Rigdon. So your counter above is incorrect.

Sometime later the Spirit gave me the knowledge that Parley P. Pratt was "the angel" that brought "the plates" to Joseph Smith. He was the angel that took the plates away. And he was the angel that brought the plates back a year later when he returned. Only later did I find out that Parley had a sales route from Palmyra to Sandusky that connected Rigdon and Smith that he traveled every year. Only after that did I find as I was led by the Spirit to find that in Parley's own autobiography there was a direct connection from Rigdon to Parley to Smith. And yet I knew this from the Spirit ahead of time. How do you explain that except possibly that you believe that I am lying?

I never said that the BOM was not inspired scripture. I do believe it was added too. But I believe that much of it is an inspired record of a real people. Especially the parts that deal with future prophecy and do not match Campbellite theology. Rigdon was a Campbellite minister before he was a Mormon.

What I said was that some doctrines introduced into the Church after April 6th, 1830 were doctrines that came from Rigdon through Parley, that Parley was excited about, that Joseph Smith adopted after the BOM was complete. Of course in revisions of the BOM since then changes have been made to support the new doctrine.

What I have not shared is the true source of the authentic portion of the BOM that came to Joseph Smith from Rigdon through Parley from the true author who was a Jew. I do not share it because the outrage and vindictiveness just mentioning the true author whose initials are SS is a thing of disgust. Yes, the BOM is as I have come to understand, more and more, since starting this topic and delving into it for clues concerning what the Spirit revealed to me about England being the BOM land, is inspired scripture.

[Michael Sherwin]

So Lehi and fam were in England, they had visions of North America where the Mormon Church is the Abominable Church that spread throughout the world, from which the book(of Mormon) came, and that same church held back things from that book? This is what you’re saying?

That is what the Book of Mormon is saying.

Okay, but before you said that Parley P Pratt was the source of the theology in the Book of Mormon. I showed you that this simply couldn’t be the case, which you never really acknowledged.

So now I’m confused.

It seems you’re now saying the Book of Mormon is a Holy Book, no longer a book whose theology comes from Pratt?

This guy also claims to have killed people with only his thoughts......

Your discussion is in vain imo

I was talking about unintended consequences. You make it sound like the things that happened were intentional. I might sound crazy but you are misrepresenting what I said and are being dishonest in your criticism. But, then you are serving your agenda which is more important than honesty, to many.

[Zathura]

So Lehi and fam were in England, they had visions of North America where the Mormon Church is the Abominable Church that spread throughout the world, from which the book(of Mormon) came, and that same church held back things from that book? This is what you’re saying?

That is what the Book of Mormon is saying.

Okay, but before you said that Parley P Pratt was the source of the theology in the Book of Mormon. I showed you that this simply couldn’t be the case, which you never really acknowledged.

So now I’m confused.

It seems you’re now saying the Book of Mormon is a Holy Book, no longer a book whose theology comes from Pratt?

I will repeat what the Spirit revealed. And I will refrain from adding anything of my own. At the time that I joined the Church I was at the house of the man that was witnessing to me. He had me watch a movie. In the movie a man comes walking out a door onto the street. I had no knowledge of who the man was. It was the first time he appeared on screen. The spirit clearly said to me, "that man is the source of the theology that is in the Book of Mormon". That man turned out to be the character representing Sidney Rigdon. So your counter above is incorrect.

Sometime later the Spirit gave me the knowledge that Parley P. Pratt was "the angel" that brought "the plates" to Joseph Smith. He was the angel that took the plates away. And he was the angel that brought the plates back a year later when he returned. Only later did I find out that Parley had a sales route from Palmyra to Sandusky that connected Rigdon and Smith that he traveled every year. Only after that did I find as I was led by the Spirit to find that in Parley's own autobiography there was a direct connection from Rigdon to Parley to Smith. And yet I knew this from the Spirit ahead of time. How do you explain that except possibly that you believe that I am lying?

I never said that the BOM was not inspired scripture. I do believe it was added too. But I believe that much of it is an inspired record of a real people. Especially the parts that deal with future prophecy and do not match Campbellite theology. Rigdon was a Campbellite minister before he was a Mormon.

What I said was that some doctrines introduced into the Church after April 6th, 1830 were doctrines that came from Rigdon through Parley, that Parley was excited about, that Joseph Smith adopted after the BOM was complete. Of course in revisions of the BOM since then changes have been made to support the new doctrine.

What I have not shared is the true source of the authentic portion of the BOM that came to Joseph Smith from Rigdon through Parley from the true author who was a Jew. I do not share it because the outrage and vindictiveness just mentioning the true author whose initials are SS is a thing of disgust. Yes, the BOM is as I have come to understand, more and more, since starting this topic and delving into it for clues concerning what the Spirit revealed to me about England being the BOM land, is inspired scripture.

Like I showed you with actual historical data and dates, the timeline the “spirit” told you is literally impossible.

Sorry, your “The Spirit told me X so what you say is invalid” simply doesn’t work here. Go back and read that thread. It’s simply not possible.
Conversations can’t go anywhere if any party decides to pull the “spirit” card. That’s why I never do it. I’ve learned I don’t even know the things I thought I knew anyway.

Idk who you’re referring to but I’m not vindictive ,I haven’t expressed outrage. I take everything you say(that can be verified through my own study) to see if perhaps what’s you’re saying is true. In regards to Parley P Pratt, it simply cant, and I showed you(and as I stated in that thread, I’m really not a big fan of Parley, I have no reason or desire to defend him). Anything you have to say that I’m able to consider and study out on my own you can feel free to share, whether it be on a thread or in a PM.

[Michael Sherwin]

Okay, time to flee this place for a while as I have been doing lately. I'll just give one more thought for consideration. Compare the total dearth of verifiable facts and specifics to support that the BOM land was in the Americas to the mountain I uncovered about England with very lazy effort on my part after the fact. After the Spirit clearly 'said' to me that the BOM land was in England. After the Spirit said to me to tell them about England. Can anyone find even the slightest inconsistency in my presentation? The only one I can think of is I got the location of Glastonbury mixed up with Glasgow. I'm not from England so maybe I can get a pass for that one. My ancestors are from England and even from the town were RH's flag avatar is from, lol. So forget about me and just consider the evidence. The evidence speaks for itself. The BOM land was England!

[Robin Hood]

Okay, time to flee this place for a while as I have been doing lately. I'll just give one more thought for consideration. Compare the total dearth of verifiable facts and specifics to support that the BOM land was in the Americas to the mountain I uncovered about England with very lazy effort on my part after the fact. After the Spirit clearly 'said' to me that the BOM land was in England. After the Spirit said to me to tell them about England. Can anyone find even the slightest inconsistency in my presentation? The only one I can think of is I got the location of Glastonbury mixed up with Glasgow. I'm not from England so maybe I can get a pass for that one. My ancestors are from England and even from the town were RH's flag avatar is from, lol. So forget about me and just consider the evidence. The evidence speaks for itself. The BOM land was England!

Your ancestors are from Nottingham?
I'm from Nottingham... born in Sherwood.

[Zathura]

Okay, time to flee this place for a while as I have been doing lately. I'll just give one more thought for consideration. Compare the total dearth of verifiable facts and specifics to support that the BOM land was in the Americas to the mountain I uncovered about England with very lazy effort on my part after the fact. After the Spirit clearly 'said' to me that the BOM land was in England. After the Spirit said to me to tell them about England. Can anyone find even the slightest inconsistency in my presentation? The only one I can think of is I got the location of Glastonbury mixed up with Glasgow. I'm not from England so maybe I can get a pass for that one. My ancestors are from England and even from the town were RH's flag avatar is from, lol. So forget about me and just consider the evidence. The evidence speaks for itself. The BOM land was England!

Why bother even asking if people see inconsistencies? I showed you inconsistencies with your story about Parley and you just discarded it because of the “spirit. Don’t ask for inconsistencies if you won’t even examine them when presented to you.

[Michael Sherwin]

That is what the Book of Mormon is saying.

Okay, but before you said that Parley P Pratt was the source of the theology in the Book of Mormon. I showed you that this simply couldn’t be the case, which you never really acknowledged.

So now I’m confused.

It seems you’re now saying the Book of Mormon is a Holy Book, no longer a book whose theology comes from Pratt?

I will repeat what the Spirit revealed. And I will refrain from adding anything of my own. At the time that I joined the Church I was at the house of the man that was witnessing to me. He had me watch a movie. In the movie a man comes walking out a door onto the street. I had no knowledge of who the man was. It was the first time he appeared on screen. The spirit clearly said to me, "that man is the source of the theology that is in the Book of Mormon". That man turned out to be the character representing Sidney Rigdon. So your counter above is incorrect.

Sometime later the Spirit gave me the knowledge that Parley P. Pratt was "the angel" that brought "the plates" to Joseph Smith. He was the angel that took the plates away. And he was the angel that brought the plates back a year later when he returned. Only later did I find out that Parley had a sales route from Palmyra to Sandusky that connected Rigdon and Smith that he traveled every year. Only after that did I find as I was led by the Spirit to find that in Parley's own autobiography there was a direct connection from Rigdon to Parley to Smith. And yet I knew this from the Spirit ahead of time. How do you explain that except possibly that you believe that I am lying?

I never said that the BOM was not inspired scripture. I do believe it was added too. But I believe that much of it is an inspired record of a real people. Especially the parts that deal with future prophecy and do not match Campbellite theology. Rigdon was a Campbellite minister before he was a Mormon.

What I said was that some doctrines introduced into the Church after April 6th, 1830 were doctrines that came from Rigdon through Parley, that Parley was excited about, that Joseph Smith adopted after the BOM was complete. Of course in revisions of the BOM since then changes have been made to support the new doctrine.

What I have not shared is the true source of the authentic portion of the BOM that came to Joseph Smith from Rigdon through Parley from the true author who was a Jew. I do not share it because the outrage and vindictiveness just mentioning the true author whose initials are SS is a thing of disgust. Yes, the BOM is as I have come to understand, more and more, since starting this topic and delving into it for clues concerning what the Spirit revealed to me about England being the BOM land, is inspired scripture.

Like I showed you with actual historical data and dates, the timeline the “spirit” told you is literally impossible.

Sorry, your “The Spirit told me X so what you say is invalid” simply doesn’t work here. Go back and read that thread. It’s simply not possible.
Conversations can’t go anywhere if any party decides to pull the “spirit” card. That’s why I never do it. I’ve learned I don’t even know the things I thought I knew anyway.

Idk who you’re referring to but I’m not vindictive ,I haven’t expressed outrage. I take everything you say(that can be verified through my own study) to see if perhaps what’s you’re saying is true. In regards to Parley P Pratt, it simply cant, and I showed you(and as I stated in that thread, I’m really not a big fan of Parley, I have no reason or desire to defend him). Anything you have to say that I’m able to consider and study out on my own you can feel free to share, whether it be on a thread or in a PM.

My use of the word vindictiveness has nothing to do with you specifically. Why do you then turn that word against me? I remember you making the case that the timeline did not fit my claim. Which means that it does not fit PPP's own autobiography. You say that I did not give an answer. I remember giving an answer. My answer was that dates recorded so long ago are often unreliable. And many times are added after the fact many years later.

The diction between us being so full of errors causes such a dichotomy of meaning that further communication seems quite pointless.

[Michael Sherwin]

Okay, time to flee this place for a while as I have been doing lately. I'll just give one more thought for consideration. Compare the total dearth of verifiable facts and specifics to support that the BOM land was in the Americas to the mountain I uncovered about England with very lazy effort on my part after the fact. After the Spirit clearly 'said' to me that the BOM land was in England. After the Spirit said to me to tell them about England. Can anyone find even the slightest inconsistency in my presentation? The only one I can think of is I got the location of Glastonbury mixed up with Glasgow. I'm not from England so maybe I can get a pass for that one. My ancestors are from England and even from the town were RH's flag avatar is from, lol. So forget about me and just consider the evidence. The evidence speaks for itself. The BOM land was England!

Your ancestors are from Nottingham?
I'm from Nottingham... born in Sherwood.

From there and from Yorkshire. All I can verify is that I have seen your avatar associated with the Sherwin's. It has been decades since I looked into any of this but wasn't there a Priest named John Sherwin from the 1600's that was from your area. I'm not sure anymore. It was too long ago. I think he was executed, iirc. Hmm, maybe he was "Little John", lol. Maybe you would be able to find out more than I could?

[Zathura]

Okay, but before you said that Parley P Pratt was the source of the theology in the Book of Mormon. I showed you that this simply couldn’t be the case, which you never really acknowledged.

So now I’m confused.

It seems you’re now saying the Book of Mormon is a Holy Book, no longer a book whose theology comes from Pratt?

I will repeat what the Spirit revealed. And I will refrain from adding anything of my own. At the time that I joined the Church I was at the house of the man that was witnessing to me. He had me watch a movie. In the movie a man comes walking out a door onto the street. I had no knowledge of who the man was. It was the first time he appeared on screen. The spirit clearly said to me, "that man is the source of the theology that is in the Book of Mormon". That man turned out to be the character representing Sidney Rigdon. So your counter above is incorrect.

Sometime later the Spirit gave me the knowledge that Parley P. Pratt was "the angel" that brought "the plates" to Joseph Smith. He was the angel that took the plates away. And he was the angel that brought the plates back a year later when he returned. Only later did I find out that Parley had a sales route from Palmyra to Sandusky that connected Rigdon and Smith that he traveled every year. Only after that did I find as I was led by the Spirit to find that in Parley's own autobiography there was a direct connection from Rigdon to Parley to Smith. And yet I knew this from the Spirit ahead of time. How do you explain that except possibly that you believe that I am lying?

I never said that the BOM was not inspired scripture. I do believe it was added too. But I believe that much of it is an inspired record of a real people. Especially the parts that deal with future prophecy and do not match Campbellite theology. Rigdon was a Campbellite minister before he was a Mormon.

What I said was that some doctrines introduced into the Church after April 6th, 1830 were doctrines that came from Rigdon through Parley, that Parley was excited about, that Joseph Smith adopted after the BOM was complete. Of course in revisions of the BOM since then changes have been made to support the new doctrine.

What I have not shared is the true source of the authentic portion of the BOM that came to Joseph Smith from Rigdon through Parley from the true author who was a Jew. I do not share it because the outrage and vindictiveness just mentioning the true author whose initials are SS is a thing of disgust. Yes, the BOM is as I have come to understand, more and more, since starting this topic and delving into it for clues concerning what the Spirit revealed to me about England being the BOM land, is inspired scripture.

Like I showed you with actual historical data and dates, the timeline the “spirit” told you is literally impossible.

Sorry, your “The Spirit told me X so what you say is invalid” simply doesn’t work here. Go back and read that thread. It’s simply not possible.
Conversations can’t go anywhere if any party decides to pull the “spirit” card. That’s why I never do it. I’ve learned I don’t even know the things I thought I knew anyway.

Idk who you’re referring to but I’m not vindictive ,I haven’t expressed outrage. I take everything you say(that can be verified through my own study) to see if perhaps what’s you’re saying is true. In regards to Parley P Pratt, it simply cant, and I showed you(and as I stated in that thread, I’m really not a big fan of Parley, I have no reason or desire to defend him). Anything you have to say that I’m able to consider and study out on my own you can feel free to share, whether it be on a thread or in a PM.

My use of the word vindictiveness has nothing to do with you specifically. Why do you then turn that word against me? I remember you making the case that the timeline did not fit my claim. Which means that it does not fit PPP's own autobiography. You say that I did not give an answer. I remember giving an answer. My answer was that dates recorded so long ago are often unreliable. And many times are added after the fact many years later.

The diction between us being so full of errors causes such a dichotomy of meaning that further communication seems quite pointless.

Please don’t feel like I’m attacking you. I have nothing against you.

Okay, let me recap a bit. You said Sidney got the manuscript from a printing press. You said he added to the manuscript using “automatic writing” by channeling some unknown entity. You then said that “somehow” Parley had gained possession of it and had them when he entered Palmyra. He then gave the manuscript to Joseph. The manuscript is “the golden plates”, and thus Parley is “the angel”.

You are corrrect, dates can be unreliable, but certain events can be reliable. For example , the day that Parley and Sidney were baptized. These are dates, days, months, years that are recorded by multiple people and entered into the church record. They might be off by a couple days, but you can be sure it’s relatively accurate.

I then explained that Parley was not baptized into the church until 1830. I showed you that Oliver Cowdery had already heard about, and sought out information about “gold plates and joe Smith ” as early as 1827. You then cited the teachings of Sidney that Parley heard in 1829 that happened to be all about priesthood. This to you is all you used to attempt to prove that Joseph got his theology from Parley . You concluded that since only Mormons have those beliefs, Joseph just have gotten it from Parley and Sidney. I then pointed out that Millions of Christians had and have those same ideas, and have started their own restoration churches, or came to the LdS church because it taught exactly what they already believed about priesthood, meaning that such beliefs really aren’t so unique and don’t necessarily mean that Joseph got them from Parley/Sidney. I also pointed out to you that Parley wasn’t baptized for a year and a half after Joseph claims to have received the priesthood by the laying on of hands, further disproving the idea that Joseph didn’t believe what he came to believe about priesthood until after Parley P Pratt joined the church.

I think this timeline speaks for itself. I found inconsistencies in your story, but your answer didn’t really address it(in my opinion).

Not to derail from the thread, this England idea is interesting. I’ll certainly take a read through the BOM with a new perspective and see what I find.

Also, who is the Jew that you say wrote the manuscript that Sidney took?

[Michael Sherwin]

I will repeat what the Spirit revealed. And I will refrain from adding anything of my own. At the time that I joined the Church I was at the house of the man that was witnessing to me. He had me watch a movie. In the movie a man comes walking out a door onto the street. I had no knowledge of who the man was. It was the first time he appeared on screen. The spirit clearly said to me, "that man is the source of the theology that is in the Book of Mormon". That man turned out to be the character representing Sidney Rigdon. So your counter above is incorrect.

Sometime later the Spirit gave me the knowledge that Parley P. Pratt was "the angel" that brought "the plates" to Joseph Smith. He was the angel that took the plates away. And he was the angel that brought the plates back a year later when he returned. Only later did I find out that Parley had a sales route from Palmyra to Sandusky that connected Rigdon and Smith that he traveled every year. Only after that did I find as I was led by the Spirit to find that in Parley's own autobiography there was a direct connection from Rigdon to Parley to Smith. And yet I knew this from the Spirit ahead of time. How do you explain that except possibly that you believe that I am lying?

I never said that the BOM was not inspired scripture. I do believe it was added too. But I believe that much of it is an inspired record of a real people. Especially the parts that deal with future prophecy and do not match Campbellite theology. Rigdon was a Campbellite minister before he was a Mormon.

What I said was that some doctrines introduced into the Church after April 6th, 1830 were doctrines that came from Rigdon through Parley, that Parley was excited about, that Joseph Smith adopted after the BOM was complete. Of course in revisions of the BOM since then changes have been made to support the new doctrine.

What I have not shared is the true source of the authentic portion of the BOM that came to Joseph Smith from Rigdon through Parley from the true author who was a Jew. I do not share it because the outrage and vindictiveness just mentioning the true author whose initials are SS is a thing of disgust. Yes, the BOM is as I have come to understand, more and more, since starting this topic and delving into it for clues concerning what the Spirit revealed to me about England being the BOM land, is inspired scripture.

Like I showed you with actual historical data and dates, the timeline the “spirit” told you is literally impossible.

Sorry, your “The Spirit told me X so what you say is invalid” simply doesn’t work here. Go back and read that thread. It’s simply not possible.
Conversations can’t go anywhere if any party decides to pull the “spirit” card. That’s why I never do it. I’ve learned I don’t even know the things I thought I knew anyway.

Idk who you’re referring to but I’m not vindictive ,I haven’t expressed outrage. I take everything you say(that can be verified through my own study) to see if perhaps what’s you’re saying is true. In regards to Parley P Pratt, it simply cant, and I showed you(and as I stated in that thread, I’m really not a big fan of Parley, I have no reason or desire to defend him). Anything you have to say that I’m able to consider and study out on my own you can feel free to share, whether it be on a thread or in a PM.

My use of the word vindictiveness has nothing to do with you specifically. Why do you then turn that word against me? I remember you making the case that the timeline did not fit my claim. Which means that it does not fit PPP's own autobiography. You say that I did not give an answer. I remember giving an answer. My answer was that dates recorded so long ago are often unreliable. And many times are added after the fact many years later.

The diction between us being so full of errors causes such a dichotomy of meaning that further communication seems quite pointless.

Please don’t feel like I’m attacking you. I have nothing against you.

Okay, let me recap a bit. You said Sidney got the manuscript from a printing press. You said he added to the manuscript using “automatic writing” by channeling some unknown entity. You then said that “somehow” Parley had gained possession of it and had them when he entered Palmyra. He then gave the manuscript to Joseph. The manuscript is “the golden plates”, and thus Parley is “the angel”.

You are corrrect, dates can be unreliable, but certain events can be reliable. For example , the day that Parley and Sidney were baptized. These are dates, days, months, years that are recorded by multiple people and entered into the church record. They might be off by a couple days, but you can be sure it’s relatively accurate.

I then explained that Parley was not baptized into the church until 1830. I showed you that Oliver Cowdery had already heard about, and sought out information about “gold plates and joe Smith ” as early as 1827. You then cited the teachings of Sidney that Parley heard in 1829 that happened to be all about priesthood. This to you is all you used to attempt to prove that Joseph got his theology from Parley . You concluded that since only Mormons have those beliefs, Joseph just have gotten it from Parley and Sidney. I then pointed out that Millions of Christians had and have those same ideas, and have started their own restoration churches, or came to the LdS church because it taught exactly what they already believed about priesthood, meaning that such beliefs really aren’t so unique and don’t necessarily mean that Joseph got them from Parley/Sidney. I also pointed out to you that Parley wasn’t baptized for a year and a half after Joseph claims to have received the priesthood by the laying on of hands, further disproving the idea that Joseph didn’t believe what he came to believe about priesthood until after Parley P Pratt joined the church.

I think this timeline speaks for itself. I found inconsistencies in your story, but your answer didn’t really address it(in my opinion).

But your timeline only addresses Church happenings. And you are mixing up theology with doctrine. Parley coming to palmyra bringing the manuscript (plates) was long before 1827. That which Parley introduced to JS about the priesthood then becoming doctrine is unclear to the exact time that occured. It could have happened before Parley was baptised into the church. Your argument is so fuzzy that it is impossible to nail down as truth. Besides this topic is about England being the BOM land. Please stay on topic.

[Michael Sherwin]

I will repeat what the Spirit revealed. And I will refrain from adding anything of my own. At the time that I joined the Church I was at the house of the man that was witnessing to me. He had me watch a movie. In the movie a man comes walking out a door onto the street. I had no knowledge of who the man was. It was the first time he appeared on screen. The spirit clearly said to me, "that man is the source of the theology that is in the Book of Mormon". That man turned out to be the character representing Sidney Rigdon. So your counter above is incorrect.

Sometime later the Spirit gave me the knowledge that Parley P. Pratt was "the angel" that brought "the plates" to Joseph Smith. He was the angel that took the plates away. And he was the angel that brought the plates back a year later when he returned. Only later did I find out that Parley had a sales route from Palmyra to Sandusky that connected Rigdon and Smith that he traveled every year. Only after that did I find as I was led by the Spirit to find that in Parley's own autobiography there was a direct connection from Rigdon to Parley to Smith. And yet I knew this from the Spirit ahead of time. How do you explain that except possibly that you believe that I am lying?

I never said that the BOM was not inspired scripture. I do believe it was added too. But I believe that much of it is an inspired record of a real people. Especially the parts that deal with future prophecy and do not match Campbellite theology. Rigdon was a Campbellite minister before he was a Mormon.

What I said was that some doctrines introduced into the Church after April 6th, 1830 were doctrines that came from Rigdon through Parley, that Parley was excited about, that Joseph Smith adopted after the BOM was complete. Of course in revisions of the BOM since then changes have been made to support the new doctrine.

What I have not shared is the true source of the authentic portion of the BOM that came to Joseph Smith from Rigdon through Parley from the true author who was a Jew. I do not share it because the outrage and vindictiveness just mentioning the true author whose initials are SS is a thing of disgust. Yes, the BOM is as I have come to understand, more and more, since starting this topic and delving into it for clues concerning what the Spirit revealed to me about England being the BOM land, is inspired scripture.

Like I showed you with actual historical data and dates, the timeline the “spirit” told you is literally impossible.

Sorry, your “The Spirit told me X so what you say is invalid” simply doesn’t work here. Go back and read that thread. It’s simply not possible.
Conversations can’t go anywhere if any party decides to pull the “spirit” card. That’s why I never do it. I’ve learned I don’t even know the things I thought I knew anyway.

Idk who you’re referring to but I’m not vindictive ,I haven’t expressed outrage. I take everything you say(that can be verified through my own study) to see if perhaps what’s you’re saying is true. In regards to Parley P Pratt, it simply cant, and I showed you(and as I stated in that thread, I’m really not a big fan of Parley, I have no reason or desire to defend him). Anything you have to say that I’m able to consider and study out on my own you can feel free to share, whether it be on a thread or in a PM.

My use of the word vindictiveness has nothing to do with you specifically. Why do you then turn that word against me? I remember you making the case that the timeline did not fit my claim. Which means that it does not fit PPP's own autobiography. You say that I did not give an answer. I remember giving an answer. My answer was that dates recorded so long ago are often unreliable. And many times are added after the fact many years later.

The diction between us being so full of errors causes such a dichotomy of meaning that further communication seems quite pointless.

Please don’t feel like I’m attacking you. I have nothing against you.

Okay, let me recap a bit. You said Sidney got the manuscript from a printing press. You said he added to the manuscript using “automatic writing” by channeling some unknown entity. You then said that “somehow” Parley had gained possession of it and had them when he entered Palmyra. He then gave the manuscript to Joseph. The manuscript is “the golden plates”, and thus Parley is “the angel”.

You are corrrect, dates can be unreliable, but certain events can be reliable. For example , the day that Parley and Sidney were baptized. These are dates, days, months, years that are recorded by multiple people and entered into the church record. They might be off by a couple days, but you can be sure it’s relatively accurate.

I then explained that Parley was not baptized into the church until 1830. I showed you that Oliver Cowdery had already heard about, and sought out information about “gold plates and joe Smith ” as early as 1827. You then cited the teachings of Sidney that Parley heard in 1829 that happened to be all about priesthood. This to you is all you used to attempt to prove that Joseph got his theology from Parley . You concluded that since only Mormons have those beliefs, Joseph just have gotten it from Parley and Sidney. I then pointed out that Millions of Christians had and have those same ideas, and have started their own restoration churches, or came to the LdS church because it taught exactly what they already believed about priesthood, meaning that such beliefs really aren’t so unique and don’t necessarily mean that Joseph got them from Parley/Sidney. I also pointed out to you that Parley wasn’t baptized for a year and a half after Joseph claims to have received the priesthood by the laying on of hands, further disproving the idea that Joseph didn’t believe what he came to believe about priesthood until after Parley P Pratt joined the church.

I think this timeline speaks for itself. I found inconsistencies in your story, but your answer didn’t really address it(in my opinion).

Not to derail from the thread, this England idea is interesting. I’ll certainly take a read through the BOM with a new perspective and see what I find.

Also, who is the Jew that you say wrote the manuscript that Sidney took?

Okay, I see your edit. THANK YOU! Let's agree to disagree about the other topic. Let's stay on subject here. The very controversial possibility for the true author of the BOM was a Jew by the name Solomon Spalding. I expect machine gun fire and grenades any second now for just typing his name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Spalding

[Robin Hood]

It has been clearly shown that Solomon Spaylding was not the author of the BoM.
Even the anti's have abandoned this theory.

[Zathura]

I have heard of him, but never looked into it mostly because I never saw anyone push it very hard.

[Michael Sherwin]

It has been clearly shown that Solomon Spaylding was not the author of the BoM.
Even the anti's have abandoned this theory.

I just researched this claim. All I see is LDS supporters (apologist) making the claim that Solomon Spalding authorship has been completely discredited. It follows the usual pattern, we looked into it and found it to be baseless therefore it isn't true. And because we say that there is absolutely no validity to the claim even the contrarians must yield to our declaration. I see no evidence of a contrarian saying that they were wrong. If there is evidence of that please show it to me. All I know is that the Spirit connected JS to PPP to SR long before I read anything about SS. SR denied knowing anything about a manuscript by SS and SS himself. But SR did admit to having a minor association to the printer in Pittsburg. The connections that support SS authorship are there. They really exist. It is not proof. It's only circumstantial. It is easily denied. But, the Spirit told me that there was a manuscript and the connection SR->PPP->JS long before I discovered them online. I have to go by what the Spirit has revealed to me. As far as I know it has never been wrong. And with that I will only respond to post about the original subject of England being the BOM land.

P.S. The Spirit never mentioned anything about Solomon Spalding. That is me connecting dots I suppose. In the end I can only go by what the Spirit revealed to me. So I guess that I should not mention a possible Solomon Spalding connection anymore.