Welcome question for Shirts: Where is the stone box?

Post by **_harmony** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:46 pm

Baurak Ale wrote:I am pretty sure my Bishop wouldn't have a clue where the stone slabbs are, he's not into church history.

He may want to know why you're asking.

Post by **_KerryAShirts** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:05 pm

Bond....James Bond said:
Well, I'm glad that's settled. Now if we can just get the Plates we'll be all set. Then again there's the horses. And wheat. And steel. And DNA evidence. And cureloms. And Kolob. Till then I bid adieu. Oh wait, about adieu....

Isn't it rather fascinating that a sincere question was asked, then answered, and immediately it is simply tossed off supposedly as insignificant until everything else is found, learned, and proven? The stone box is no longer a problem, yet it is simply left behind as insignificant after all. IF it HADN'T been found, what a whoop tee do critics would make of it! But now that its been confirmed, seen, etc., it's simply forgotten about as oh just more of nothing. Am I the only one who notices this?

Post by **_KerryAShirts** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:12 pm

Vegas refugee claimed there is no "historical context" for the plates. I dare say the ignorance of this statement is overwhelming. See here just for a start of an avalanche of materials, that is if you are genuinely wanting to learn and understand. Ridicule all you want, but keep your own patent ignorance of "historical contexts" in your own empty closet, I've filled mine to overflowing with evidences.........

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/hcurtis.htm

Post by **_Alter Idem** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:38 pm

harmony wrote:
Baurak Ale wrote:I am pretty sure my Bishop wouldn't have a clue where the stone slabbs are, he's not into church history.

He may want to know why you're asking.

I'm not sure why his Bishop would care? Taking an interest in the stone box shouldn't be considered subversive.

I don't think writing to the historical dept. is a big deal either. Now, writing to an apostle and bugging them about obscure doctrinal issues will most likely get your letter bumped back to your Bishop.

Post by **_harmony** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:18 pm

Backyard Professor wrote:
Bond....James Bond said:
Well, I'm glad that's settled. Now if we can just get the Plates we'll be all set. Then again there's the horses. And wheat. And steel. And DNA evidence. And cureloms. And Kolob. Till then I bid adieu. Oh wait, about adieu....

Isn't it rather fascinating that a sincere question was asked, then answered, and immediately it is simply tossed off supposedly as insignificant until everything else is found, learned, and proven? The stone box is no longer a problem, yet it is simply left behind as insignificant after all. IF it HADN'T been found, what a whoop tee do critics would make of it! But now that its been confirmed, seen, etc., it's simply forgotten about as oh just more of nothing. Am I the only one who notices this?

Kerry, the supposed answer was a statement by a person whose word is suspect at best, which makes the statement problematic and virtually worthless. Big deal, David Whitmer says he saw the box. He's not exactly an uninterested party. What is wanted is the location of the box that lasted thousands of years now. This is one of those "show me the money" things. All you have to do is produce the box now and PP will shut up (right, PP?).

Post by **_Bond...James Bond** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:31 pm

Backyard Professor wrote:
Bond....James Bond said:
Well, I'm glad that's settled. Now if we can just get the Plates we'll be all set. Then again there's the horses. And wheat. And steel. And DNA evidence. And cureloms. And Kolob. Till then I bid adieu. Oh wait, about adieu....

Isn't it rather fascinating that a sincere question was asked, then answered, and immediately it is simply tossed off supposedly as insignificant until everything else is found, learned, and proven? The stone box is no longer a problem, yet it is simply left behind as insignificant after all. IF it HADN'T been found, what a whoop tee do critics would make of it! But now that its been confirmed, seen, etc., it's simply forgotten about as oh just more of nothing. Am I the only one who notices this?

It hasn't been answered. The stone box is still a problem because it hasn't been found. The critics don't make a big deal of it because Mormon history has a hundred easier things they can talk about.

It's forgotten as more of nothing, because it's just that, nothing. Show us the box, not an eyewitness.

Post by **_Polygamy Porter** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:17 pm

If this thread demonstrates anything, Bond's responses are full of it.

He is a non member.

Do you think he would ever join the LDS cult?

Hell no.

He knows far too much.

The best converts come from TBM wombs, that way they can guarantee they will get the milk from their unwitting TBM mother's tit first.

Any adult that knows all of the rotten meat, but still choses to join, in my opinion, has obvious mental issues.

It is much easier to reveal the truth than it is to hide it.

Post by **_harmony** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:14 pm

Any adult that knows all of the rotten meat, but still choses to join, in my opinion, has obvious mental issues.

That's the tricky part, PP. Twinkie is a recent convert, and she says there's stuff the missionaries leave out. I think some people, even if they know the so-called rotten meat you refer to, may choose to overlook it, in order to accomplish their own agenda, whatever that may be. Saying they have mental issues is a tad too extreme for my taste. Different strokes for different folks.

Post by **_Polygamy Porter** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:30 pm

harmony wrote:
Any adult that knows all of the rotten meat, but still choses to join, in my opinion, has obvious mental issues.

That's the tricky part, PP. Twinkie is a recent convert, and she says there's stuff the missionaries leave out. I think some people, even if they know the so-called rotten meat you refer to, may choose to overlook it, in order to accomplish their own agenda, whatever that may be. Saying they have mental issues is a tad too extreme for my taste. Different strokes for different folks.

*cue Olvia Newton John* "You hafta believe in maaaagicc!!!"

Post by **_Baurak Ale** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:13 pm

As for the purpose of the witnesses, that was of course to fufill the ancient law of witnesses as found in the scriptures.

The Backyard Professor has made a very good observation, reminds me of the old addage. "Those who know need no further explanation, those who don't no explanation is possible". That is so eternally true.