If the Prophet Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 12:08 am
I'm guessing that since 'ol Joe had used the same stone to conjure up lost and buried treasure - which seemed to have gotten him into some trouble, depicting him using it in the hat was, probably, a wise decision on the church's part.
Minimizing Joe's questionable past would help to clean up his image.
Only problem is;
YOU CAN'T POLISH A TURD.
Minimizing Joe's questionable past would help to clean up his image.
Only problem is;
YOU CAN'T POLISH A TURD.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am
Draig Goch wrote:I'm guessing that since 'ol Joe had used the same stone to conjure up lost and buried treasure - which seemed to have gotten him into some trouble, depicting him using it in the hat was, probably, a wise decision on the church's part.
Minimizing Joe's questionable past would help to clean up his image.
Only problem is;
YOU CAN'T POLISH A TURD.
Wow, you really got me there.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
maklelan wrote:Jersey Girl wrote:maklelan wrote:Do you really believed he translated the plates?
Are you asking that question of me, maklelan?
Jersey Girl
Yes I am.
No, I don't. I believe that he dictated the Book of Mormon. Of what relevance is that to the question of the portrayal of the event on the official website of the LDS Church? Do I need to believe in Mormonism to ask questions about it?
Jersey Girl
Last edited by Google Feedfetcher on Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
maklelan wrote:Draig Goch wrote:I'm guessing that since 'ol Joe had used the same stone to conjure up lost and buried treasure - which seemed to have gotten him into some trouble, depicting him using it in the hat was, probably, a wise decision on the church's part.
Minimizing Joe's questionable past would help to clean up his image.
Only problem is;
YOU CAN'T POLISH A TURD.
Wow, you really got me there.
If it's any help, I didn't appreciate that closing remark either.
Jersey Girl
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am
Jersey Girl wrote:maklelan wrote:Jersey Girl wrote:maklelan wrote:Do you really believed he translated the plates?
Are you asking that question of me, maklelan?
Jersey Girl
Yes I am.
No, I don't. I believe that he dictated the Book of Mormon. Of what relevance is that to the question of the portrayal of the event on the official website of the LDS Church? Do I need to believe in Mormonism to ask questions about it?
Jersey Girl
That you don't believe it makes me wonder why you care. If you think it never happened any of the ways explained, what does it matter how they depict it? If it happened with a hat or a white salamander or in a box with a fox, it's all still false to you. If we only used the other pictures you'd still ridicule and find fault. Is there any point in anyone trying to convince you that we're trying our best to do things right? I don't see any. This is a straw man. There's nothing that can convince you you're wrong, so why bother?
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
maklelan wrote:Jersey Girl wrote:maklelan wrote:Jersey Girl wrote:maklelan wrote:Do you really believed he translated the plates?
Are you asking that question of me, maklelan?
Jersey Girl
Yes I am.
No, I don't. I believe that he dictated the Book of Mormon. Of what relevance is that to the question of the portrayal of the event on the official website of the LDS Church? Do I need to believe in Mormonism to ask questions about it?
Jersey Girl
That you don't believe it makes me wonder why you care. If you think it never happened any of the ways explained, what does it matter how they depict it? If it happened with a hat or a white salamander or in a box with a fox, it's all still false to you. If we only used the other pictures you'd still ridicule and find fault. Is there any point in anyone trying to convince you that we're trying our best to do things right? I don't see any. This is a straw man. There's nothing that can convince you you're wrong, so why bother?
maklelan,
I take strong exception to your comments above. Please highlight any comment I've made in this series of posts that indicates "ridicule" on my part. If you're going to accuse me of something, I challenge you to demonstrate that. If you were to read the thread I posted explaining the reason for the series of "If" questions I have raised you would understand why I did so.
In answer to your comments about using other pictures to depict the translation of the Gold Plates, if the official website of the church used imagery that accurately portrayed the translation, I wouldn't be asking the question to start with.
Feel free to ask me any question regarding what I think of various aspects of the LDS Church and it's theology/doctrines however, I will ask you one time to refrain from characterizing my posts as "ridicule" where it doesn't exist.
Jersey Girl
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am
Jersey Girl wrote:
maklelan,
I take strong exception to your comments above. Please highlight any comment I've made in this series of posts that indicates "ridicule" on my part. If you're going to accuse me of something, I challenge you to demonstrate that. If you were to read the thread I posted explaining the reason for the series of "If" questions I have raised you would understand why I did so.
In answer to your comments about using other pictures to depict the translation of the Gold Plates, if the official website of the church used imagery that accurately portrayed the translation, I wouldn't be asking the question to start with.
Feel free to ask me any question regarding what I think of various aspects of the LDS Church and it's theology/doctrines however, I will ask you one time to refrain from characterizing my posts as "ridicule" where it doesn't exist.
Jersey Girl
I apologize. You're correct. You didn't ridicule anything, but your machine gun threads seem to be heading in that direction. If that's not your intention then I apologize. I still feel this question is based on a fallacy, though, because no matter how they depict it, in your mind it's going to be false. The fact that there are a few different translating methods attested to in the record, and you want the church to depict only the odd one makes me wonder why; and the only reason I can fathom is because you want the church to be embarrassed, or to have to account for some kind of perceived deception that was perpetrated in an attempt to avoid embarrassment. If this isn't the case then I would love to know why this thread is relevant to anything.