Current GA Being Accused of Child Abuse; the 12 Ignore It

[_Jersey Girl]

MG give me a link to where the interaction took place and I'll take a look at it. I haven't seen it in sequence. I haven't been following it.

[_Tator]

And now the sideways attack in another thread. You have really fallen! wow, you really cannot stand to have your lies called out. That's ok, I forgive you.

They don't know what to make of you. Welcome to my world, Lemmie.

I bolded and underlined the part that has got under MG's thin skin.

In MG's mind he is a Mormon man that doesn't need forgiveness then it is just lower than low to be offered forgiveness from a woman.

[_Jersey Girl]

I bolded and underlined the part that has got under MG's thin skin.

In MG's mind he is a Mormon man that doesn't need forgiveness then it is just lower than low to be offered forgiveness from a woman.

So would you say she's a bit of a smart ass?

[_Lemmie]

Hi Jersey Girl, sorry you're getting the runaround from mg, and thank you to all who came to my defense!

I feel bad he's now pretending it didn't happen and is lying about it and pestering people to read the thread, so I cut and pasted it to save you the trouble (full link at end if you want to read).

Below are the 5 times I caught his lying, all from pages 7 through 9, thread link at end, for full context.

Started here:

Vogel and Quinn both believe that there were plates, right?

Dan Vogel believes that Joseph made fake plates.

P8, first time I ask him not to mislead:

So we have Vogel and Quinn, two of the premier researchers of Joseph and early Mormonism, agreeing that there were plates.

No. Grindael said "Dan Vogel believes that Joseph made fake plates."

In no way is it appropriate to fold that into a statement that he is one of two agreeing that there were plates. It is misleading and inaccurate.

Still p 8, second time:

Well, that's true. The question still remains. Were there plates of some sort? Two premier researchers seem to agree that there were.

Regards,
MG

Well no, two researchers don't seem to agree that there were. We just covered this.

Third time, p. 8:

I think you may not so deftly be avoiding the fact that both Quinn and Vogel and many other witnesses at the time of Joseph Smith are fairly confident that there were plates of some sort.

I can see why you would want to think that there weren't any plates.

Regards,
MG

You are 'not so deftly avoiding,' for the third time, the statement that "Dan Vogel believes that Joseph made fake plates."

In no way is it appropriate to fold his assessment into a statement that conflates it with witnesses thinking there were plates. It is misleading and inaccurate.

4th time, p. 9:

I think the fact that Dan Vogel defaulted to plates...even if he thinks they were concocted...says something in and of itself.

No, MG. More dishonesty. Less than an hour and a half ago, in this very thread:

I don’t simply default to fake plates, although it is in a sense the default position in light of the Book of Mormon’s lack of historical support. The less likely one judges the Book of Mormon’s historicity to be the more likely the plates were fake. The burden is on believers to prove Book of Mormon historicity to establish the plates were real.

5th time, p 9:

I've been saying all along that Vogel posits that there may have been plates. I haven't said that he positioned himself by saying that there were plates delivered by an angel and/or that they were made of gold.

But plates, nonetheless. Is that clear enough?

This seems to be rather rudimentary. I'm not sure what it is you're trying to argue.

Regards,
MG

It is rudimentary, MG. And your reputation precedes you. It is dishonest for you to say that 'Vogel posits there may have been plates,' after what has been said the last three pages. So no, not 'plates, nonetheless.'

Please have the integrity to represent his words as he meant them.

"Dan Vogel believes that Joseph made fake plates."

Your refusal to accurately represent his words, now for the fifth time, is utterly lacking in integrity.

And a summing up, still p. 9:

Your purpose seems to be one of steering a topic off course and/or misrepresenting what is actually being said. But you really don't seem to have anything of real substance to contribute.

Right on schedule MG. Your misrepresentations are not being allowed, so you accuse others of steering the topic off your artificial course. Your disingenuous non-substance is being rebutted so you accuse others of not having anything to contribute.

Five times you have tried to twist Dan Vogel's words, and five times I have called you on it, so your solution is to accuse me of 'coming at you like this.'

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35682&start=168

[_Jersey Girl]

Thanks, Lemmie. I think that you and MG both know me well enough to know that I'll call it exactly how I see it, whether or not either or both of you disagrees with it. But first, I really need to use the link and see what preceded those exchanges and what followed. I'll be back

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Holy crap. I had no idea Mental Gymnast would just... Blatantly lie like that.

MG,

You owe everyone on this thread a solid mea culpa.

- Doc

[_Maksutov]

Holy s***. I had no idea Mental Gymnast would just... Blatantly lie like that.

MG,

You owe everyone on this thread a solid mea culpa.

- Doc

He's a black hole of attention. I'm tired of seeing him ignore 99% of what he's been presented and coming back wanting more. It's a colossal waste of time.

[_Lemmie]

Thanks, Lemmie. I think that you and MG both know me well enough to know that I'll call it exactly how I see it, whether or not either or both of you disagrees with it. But first, I really need to use the link and see what preceded those exchanges and what followed. I'll be back

Of course! I would expect nothing less.

Please do read the link, cut and paste was for convenience but the full read is of course the ultimate source.

It's a lot to read, but it's a very interesting thread! I really appreciated Dan Vogel's contributions, lots and lots of input from our usual very knowledgeable regulars and of course grindael's work. I learned a lot.

[_mentalgymnast]

My statements:

Vogel and Quinn both believe that there were plates, right?

Ok so far, right?

So we have Vogel and Quinn, two of the premier researchers of Joseph and early Mormonism, agreeing that there were plates.

Ok so far, right?

Lemmie makes an assertion:

In no way is it appropriate to fold that into a statement that he is one of two agreeing that there were plates. It is misleading and inaccurate.

Back to my comments...

Well, that's true. The question still remains. Were there plates of some sort? Two premier researchers seem to agree that there were.

Notice the admission. Ok so far, right?

I think you may not so deftly be avoiding the fact that both Quinn and Vogel and many other witnesses at the time of Joseph Smith are fairly confident that there were plates of some sort.

Plates of some sort...Ok so far, right?

Lemmie makes another assertion:

You are 'not so deftly avoiding,' for the third time, the statement that "Dan Vogel believes that Joseph made fake plates."

Just before I had said, "plates of some sort'...acknowledging that they may not have been gold and that they could have been fake.
Ok so far, right?

Lemmie asserts:

In no way is it appropriate to fold his assessment into a statement that conflates it with witnesses thinking there were plates. It is misleading and inaccurate.

All I said is that both Vogel and Quinn were open to there being plates. Nowhere did I say that Vogel said they were gold plates.
Ok so far, right?
Where did I "conflate" anything?

Back to my statements:

I think the fact that Dan Vogel defaulted to plates...even if he thinks they were concocted...says something in and of itself.

Notice I said that Vogel considers the plates to be concocted.
Ok so far, right?

Lemmie then repeats what Vogel said:

No, MG. More dishonesty. Less than an hour and a half ago, in this very thread:
Vogel: I don’t simply default to fake plates, although it is in a sense the default position in light of the Book of Mormon’s lack of historical support. The less likely one judges the Book of Mormon’s historicity to be the more likely the plates were fake. The burden is on believers to prove Book of Mormon historicity to establish the plates were real.

So Vogel says the plates, if any, would more than likely have been concocted. Which is what I said earlier along with saying that both Vogel and Quinn would agree that there were "some sort of plates".

Ok so far, right?

Back to my statements:

I've been saying all along that Vogel posits that there may have been plates. I haven't said that he positioned himself by saying that there were plates delivered by an angel and/or that they were made of gold.

But plates, nonetheless. Is that clear enough?

This seems to be rather rudimentary. I'm not sure what it is you're trying to argue.

This seems to put everything in perspective in case there was any misunderstanding.

Ok so far, right?

Then we have Lemmie's assertion and judgement:

It is rudimentary, MG. And your reputation precedes you. It is dishonest for you to say that 'Vogel posits there may have been plates,' after what has been said the last three pages. So no, not 'plates, nonetheless.'

So...I said that Vogel said that there may have been plates. Where is the problem here?

Lemmie asserts:

Please have the integrity to represent his words as he meant them.

I think that I did that all along. At least that was my intent. Lemmie may have somehow misunderstood?

"Dan Vogel believes that Joseph made fake plates."

No argument from me there.

Lemmie repeats her assertion:

Your refusal to accurately represent his words, now for the fifth time, is utterly lacking in integrity.

But I never asserted anything different than what Vogel himself said.

Finally Lemmie asserts that:

Five times you have tried to twist Dan Vogel's words, and five times I have called you on it, so your solution is to accuse me of 'coming at you like this.'

The thing is, I never twisted his words. I said that Vogel was open to there being "some sort of plates" That doesn't mean that they were gold plates. I also said that he (Vogel) considered the plates, if any, to be concocted. Again, that...at least I think...would leave it open to the plates being something other than what Joseph Smith purported them to be.

So where is the lie? Where is the dishonesty?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Holy s***. I had no idea Mental Gymnast would just... Blatantly lie like that.

MG,

You owe everyone on this thread a solid mea culpa.

- Doc

Where did I lie?

Why do I owe and apology?

Regards,
MG