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

[_Jersey Girl]

MG,

What I observe is that when a poster presents you with a wall of text to reply to, you tend to shut down and start dancing. That said, I'll repost my two questions to you here so you can't miss them.

1. What does it add to your position (the position you've never stated) if 2 scholars believe that there were plates when one of them thinks the plates were fake?

2. When you say that Dan Vogel, believes that fake plates existed "says something in and of itself"....what does it say?

In my rather LONG post have I treated these questions adequately?

Regards,
MG

No you haven't you crappy little bastard.

Answer them. Answer them now or die.

[_Jersey Girl]

Hello Boys and Girls, Dr. Jersey Dentist at your service. Watch me pull teeth.

How is it a net positive?

That it is not unreasonable to consider plates playing a part in the 'coming forth' narrative of the Book of Mormon.

Regards,
MG

Even if they are fake?

[_mentalgymnast]

1. You owe Dan effing Vogel an apology for misrepresenting him on the very heels of the post he made denying that fake plates were his default position.

Is he not open to the possibility of there having been plates? Did I ever say that he said they were real, as in made of gold?

2. You owe Lemmie an apology for exasperating her with your avoidance.

Do you still believe that after having read the transcript which I provided of the conversation. My statements...and comments. Her statements...and comments?

3. You owe me an apology for making me read 9 pages of an effing two year old thread about Mormon stuff to give you my honest impressions and opinion about what took place as a courtesy to you in order to meet YOUR request.

That was a chore...I know. Sorry. It was a chore to go back and actually rehash the whole thing and script it out too.

Regards,
MG

[_Jersey Girl]

MG,

Look at me.

Answer the 2 questions that I posed to you.

[_mentalgymnast]

1. What does it add to your position (the position you've never stated) if 2 scholars believe that there were plates when one of them thinks the plates were fake?

I've said it, but I'll say it again. From a believer's perspective the fact/possibility (agreed upon by two Mormon scholars) that there may have been plates, of some sort, increases the likelihood that we...as believers...don't have to throw the whole 'plate' scenario out the window.

2. When you say that Dan Vogel, believes that fake plates existed "says something in and of itself"....what does it say?

I answered that question.

MG: In my rather LONG post have I treated these questions adequately?

No you haven't...

Answer them. Answer them now or die.

I think that I have. Let me know if there is anything of importance that I didn't clarify satisfactorily in the transcript I posted earlier.

Regards,
MG

[_Jersey Girl]

2. When you say that Dan Vogel, believes that fake plates existed "says something in and of itself"....what does it say?

Answer it again.

[_mentalgymnast]

MG,

What I observe is that when a poster presents you with a wall of text to reply to, you tend to shut down and start dancing...

In the case we're referring to I think that I've shown that Lemmie kept repeating herself in saying that I was lying...over and over again. Yes, after that became somewhat tedious...even after I tried to clear things up for her...I decided that she was simply being obnoxious.

Regards,
MG

[_Jersey Girl]

Come on, MG. I can almost see the head of your argument. Just give it one more push.

2. When you say that Dan Vogel, believes that fake plates existed "says something in and of itself"....what does it say?

Answer it again.

[_mentalgymnast]

2. When you say that Dan Vogel, believes that fake plates existed "says something in and of itself"....what does it say?

Answer it again.

Cut and paste from earlier:

Earlier grindael had posited that the plates were not plates. That the plates were actually a stone/rock that had been passed through a window and seen by a witness. Vogel took the POV, at least as far as I can remember, that there were probably some sort of plates rather than a rock/stone.

So...the fact that we have Vogel and Quinn both leaning towards plates I see as an evidence, of a sort, that there were plates involved in the narrative of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

I saw that as a net positive. Nothing wrong with that, right?

I also made it clear somewhere there in the transcript that Vogel viewed any plates that may have existed as being concocted/fabricated by Joseph Smith.

Earlier I used the word concocted. I'm also throwing in 'fabricated' at this point for clarification.

Regards,
MG

[_Jersey Girl]

Almost there, honey. Take a deep breath, bear down and work with me here.

I saw that as a net positive. Nothing wrong with that, right?

How is it a net positive?