Joseph's apparent contradiction.

[LeSellers]

Do you deny Joseph Smith was a money-digger? yes/no

He didn't, why should we? Of course, as he said, it was never very profitable for him.

Do you deny money-diggers believed in treasure guardians? yes/no

Some of them did. So what?

Do you deny I have already presented multiple data points to validate the testimony of Thompson at Joseph Smith's trial? yes/no

"Data points" are not proof. It takes a bit more than a few data points to make the point. You have not validated his testimony.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

If you want to use Moses as an analogy, let's do it right.

• Moses did not go back to Egypt and spend a few years living as an Egyptian after God called him to lead the Israelites out of Egypt.

Moses was not a child when he was called, either.

• Moses did not wait until years after the Exodus to make public the fact that God had personally called him to lead the Israelites.

He did as he was told, just as Joseph did. Joseph waited because the time was not ripe in 1820 for the world to know what had happened in the grove. Nor, it appears, are you, 190 years later.

• Moses did not claim that everyone persecuted him because of his story of the burning bush, even though no one seems to have known about it.

How do you know? What we have of his life in his writings (and every where else, as well) is woefully limited.

• Moses did not claim at first that he asked God to free the Israelites and later change his story to claim that it never occurred to him that God might free the Israelites.

How do you know? What we have of his life in his writings (and every where else, as well) is woefully limited.

• Moses did not start out saying only that the angel Michael appeared to him, then years later get up the courage to say that he also saw God.

How do you know? What we have of his life in his writings (and every where else, as well) is woefully limited. When, exactly, did Moses write Exodus?

• Moses did not have apologists making excuses for him generations later on the basis of a weakness he clearly did not have.

You have a list of his apologists? You know what his weaknesses were, and which he did not have? God denied him the right to enter the Promised Land based on one of his weaknesses.

Joseph Smith was many things, but shyness or timidity was not one of them.)

How do you know?

We know almost nothing of his life and personality before the beginning of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Except he was generous and liked serving his fellows, including little girls whose brothers wouldn't help, yet Joseph, the cripple, carried her after a hard day's work.

Oh, just so it's clear, this is a formal call for reference on each point that you claimed. They're all positive claims, so you must have evidence (at least) for your assertions.

Lehi

[thews]

He didn't, why should we? Of course, as he said, it was never very profitable for him.

Note to those with critical thought processes, Joseph Smith used his seer stones, the exact same seer stone used to translate every word of Mormon doctrine out of a hat for $14 a month which was a lot of money back then. LeSellers' argument is that it "wasn't very profitable" to use magical rocks to see dead Indian treasure guardians... not that he didn't, but that it wasn't very profitable... look up what you coul buy in 1826 for $14.

Some of them did. So what?

Note to those with a critical thought process... look at the lack of substance here.

"Data points" are not proof. It takes a bit more than a few data points to make the point. You have not validated his testimony.

Lehi

Note to people with a critical thought process, "Data points" are not proof to LeSellers... (insert counter data here... note, it doesn't exist).

[selek]

Note to those with critical thought processes, Joseph Smith used his seer stones, the exact same seer stone used to translate every word of Mormon doctrine out of a hat for $14 a month which was a lot of money back then.

Note to those with critical thought processes: Thews has alleged something he cannot prove. There is no evidence that "every word of Mormon doctrine" was translated using the "seer stone".

Thews argument is simply bigoted rhetoric attempting to poison the well and avoid factual argument.

LeSellers' argument is that it "wasn't very profitable" to use magical rocks to see dead Indian treasure guardians... not that he didn't, but that it wasn't very profitable... look up what you coul buy in 1826 for $14.

More inflammatory rhetoric. There is only a single record of Joseph engaging in this behavior. Apparently, it was so profitable that Joseph went back to back-breaking labor and subsistence-level farming instead.

In the same vein, let's look at how profitable it is to write tell-all books and circulate bigoted and inflammatory lies about Mormons. Thews ministry appears to be doing quite well for him, just as Rob Bowman's.

That having been said- thews arguments are taking place in the context of that avocation- the selling of a particular gospel and agenda, rather than in an unbiased examination of the facts.

Note to those with a critical thought process... look at the lack of substance here.

Quite correct. Thews has produced nothing of genuine substance. Each of his data points might be factually accurate- but they fail to combine into a cohesive or logical truth. It's all a tissue of circumstantial evidence, innuendo, and attempted mind-reading, predigested to ensure a pre-determined conclusion.

Thews is politicking and proselyting- but he's not reasoning.

Note to people with a critical thought process, "Data points" are not proof to LeSellers... (insert counter data here... note, it doesn't exist).

Note to people with a critical thought process: "data points" are NOT proof. They are evidence. Thinking people understand the difference- namely that "proof" requires a higher evidentiary standard than Thews has displayed.

Note to people with a critical thought process: Thews is engaging in a "house that Jack built" fallacy- matching a handful of circumstantial evidence into a grandiose claim that cannot survive careful analysis.

As before it's a tissue of speculation predicated upon what-if's, maybe's, and supposition.

It's all a house of cards, and if a single one of thew's points fails, the entire structure comes tumbling down.

[thews]

Note to those with critical thought processes: Thews has alleged something he cannot prove. There is no evidence that "every word of Mormon doctrine" was translated using the "seer stone".

From post #37 of this thread:

Smith's apostles used this same terminology. For example, on 27 December 1841, Wilford Woodruff recorded in his journal a meeting of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles with Joseph Smith in the Prophet's home. "I had the privilege," Woodruff wrote, "of seeing for the first time in my day the URIM & THUMMIM."19 We know that Joseph had returned the spectacles to the angel Moroni over a decade earlier. Brigham Young's journal account of the same meeting clarifies that Woodruff was writing about one of Joseph's seer stones: "I met with the Twelve at brother Joseph's. He conversed with us in a familiar manner on a variety of subjects . . . [and] he showed us his seer stone."20 The terms key and keys

[Nemesis]

Thews knock it off, or ill throw you out of the thread.

Nemesis

[Pahoran]

I tire of your same ploy Pahoran. I present data, you ingnore it, claim you're somehow insulted and blather on for pages creating the same tired drama without addressing the points by discounting facts that you choose to ignore. If I have time this afternoon I'll once again answer the same questions.

And yet your ploy never grows old. You present your opinions and call them "data." Sometimes your opinions are accompanied by a quotation from something or other, and sometimes they are not; sometimes the quotation directly contradicts your argument and sometimes it is of ambiguous weight, but you always wave a hand at it as if it supports you, and you never actually produce any analysis thereof to show why it does.

And apologists eed to acknowledge the 1835 written account which matches the first revision of the Book of Mormon. The "official" first vision matches the current revision to the Book of Mormon. How can you ignore a written account by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey and claim it's invalid?

CALL FOR REFERENCES that anyone in this thread has claimed that the 1835 account is "invalid."

Put up or shut up, because I say you made it up.

Grasping at straws? Joseph Smith changed the year of the first vision story from 16, to 15 and then to 14.

CALL FOR REFERENCES please.

And this isn't because I don't know what you are talking about; I do. I don't think you do, though.

More actual data for you in the trail of evolving stories:

Two accounts not given by Joseph, but given at second hand -- IOW, hearsay -- many years after the official version was published.

More actual data for your consideration on deciding what is or isn't hearsay regarding what a money-digger would say about a treasure guardian:

"His appearance at this time, was that of a careless young man - not very well educated, and very saucy and insolent to his father

[LeSellers]

Joseph Smith used his seer stones, the exact same seer stone used to translate every word of Mormon doctrine out of a hat for $14 a month which was a lot of money back then.

Huh!?!

Joseph did not use the seer stone to "translate" "every word of Mormon doctrine". Nor did he use a hat for "every word of Mormon doctrine".

He did not use the seer stone nor the hat to translate "every word of [the Book of] Mormon", either.

Let's also see any evidence you have that Joseph was ever paid anything for translating anything. And certainly $14/month.

So what the ever-lovin' blue blazes are you talking about?

LeSellers' ...

Please call me Lehi, just as my in-laws do and as Presidents Carter and Clinton did.

[Lehi's] argument is that it "wasn't very profitable" to use magical rocks to see dead Indian treasure guardians... not that he didn't, but that it wasn't very profitable... look up what you coul buy in 1826 for $14.

Non sequitor. Lehi did not argue that $14 was or was not a significant amount of money.

Joseph Smith, as I made clear in the message to which you responded, said it was not very profitable for him.

Furthermore, I said absolutely nothing about Indian treasure guardians and neither did Joseph Smith, nor anyone else with knowledge of the matter. That was fabricated out of whole cloth. It is false, nothing more.

"Data points" are not proof to [Lehi].

Data points are nothing more than data points, They are not "proof". They are "evidence". If this is the limit of your logic, you are in a very unenviable position.

Lehi

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I asked for data... you produce the same tired "is not" retort based on nothing. If I can produce multiple accounts that all say the say thing, it's not hearsay just because you need it to be. You produce zero data and don't address the data presented... typical.

Yeah, I see you just dismissed every word that I wrote with the wave of your hand.

Note to anyone with a crictal thought process... look at what supports this claim (nothing... zero data).

Note to those with a critical thought process... look at the foundation for this parallel argument based on nothing.

Note to those with a critical thought process... the more wordy the argument from silence is based on nothing, the intent becomes more obvious.

This is dangeriously close to an ad hominem attack. So it is your position that I lack critical thought processes? Brilliant Thews. It is worth a note that when such takes place, you have lost the argument.

Note to those with a critical thought process... this is what's called a :highfive: without anything but opinion to back up what hard data has already been presented.

It is no such thing as a high five. A high five would be "THews totally destroyed Pahorans arguments". I see all you give is your opinion with nothing to back it up with, despite numerous attempts for you to give good quality "data points". You are not fooling any one here Thews.

Do you deny Joseph Smith was a money-digger? yes/no

Why would I deny that? Oh yeah you think I lack critical thinking skills. Just in case you can't figure out, my answer is: no I don't deny it.

Do you deny money-diggers believed in treasure guardians? yes/no

Some might others might not. Just because some do, doesn't mean that all do. Evidently with your superior logic and critical thinking skillz you think that all must believe in treasure gardians.

Do you deny I have already presented multiple data points to validate the testimony of Thompson at Joseph Smith's trial? yes/no

You have not presented multiple "data points" that validate the testimony hearsay of what Thompson allegadly said at JS trial.

Note to those with a critical thought process, if these questions are actually answered, it won't be with data. We'll see????

Note to those with a critical thought process, hearsay does not represent valid testimony that something happened. We'll see????

[jmordecai]

In the 1834/35 account (Messenger & Advocate), in his 17th year, Joseph inquires to know if a supreme being exists, and receives such confirmation with a visitation in his bedroom. This is a contradiction--to want to know if a supreme being exists--if Smith had seen the Father and Son in the grove years earlier.

[thews]

And yet your ploy never grows old. You present your opinions and call them "data." Sometimes your opinions are accompanied by a quotation from something or other, and sometimes they are not; sometimes the quotation directly contradicts your argument and sometimes it is of ambiguous weight, but you always wave a hand at it as if it supports you, and you never actually produce any analysis thereof to show why it does.

It's not my opinion if I link he source, you ignore it, and I'm supposed to go back and re-write everything... your ploy is to just make it too hard to have a conversation with you.

CALL FOR REFERENCES that anyone in this thread has claimed that the 1835 account is "invalid."

Put up or shut up, because I say you made it up.

CALL FOR REFERENCES please.

And this isn't because I don't know what you are talking about; I do. I don't think you do, though.

Two accounts not given by Joseph, but given at second hand -- IOW, hearsay -- many years after the official version was published.

CALL FOR REFERENCES, please. From which hate site did you cut and paste that misattribution?

I can't link my sources from what you deem is an "anti" site (board rules), but I can link where they came from. You just continue to ignore the data that you discount. Exactly what data do you discount as false, and by what data do you use to make the claim? Call for references please, as I have already given you the sources.

The quotation you gave is NOT from Josiah Stowell's testimony. It is from Isaac Hale's peevish complaint about the man who married his daughter. Whoever told you it was Josiah Stowell is either a barefaced liar or an utterly incompetent researcher, and you should never rely upon anything that person says until you have checked it at least twice.

Regards,

Pahoran

You may be right on this one... OK wrong name associated with the quote. By the way, claiming the data was a "peevish complaint" doesn't negate it. It may or may not add weight, but when multiple sources all say the same thing, it all adds up to one logical conclusion. In this case, attacking one source doesn't discount all others. You still have not presented anything that would indicate the testimony of Thompson is not to be believed. Again, it all makes sense and is what one would expect from people who sought treasure back then.

[thews]

Huh!?!

Joseph did not use the seer stone to "translate" "every word of Mormon doctrine". Nor did he use a hat for "every word of Mormon doctrine".

He did not use the seer stone nor the hat to translate "every word of [the Book of] Mormon", either.

I've already linked it and you just ignore it. But ok, here some more because you are wrong:

Emma Smith: "In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."

David Whitmer: "I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man."

Note that when the Book of Commandments was written (before it became the D&C), it said nothing of the "Urim and Thummim". The use of those words was added later to D&C 10 and you can verify this by looking at the history of the church.

Let's also see any evidence you have that Joseph was ever paid anything for translating anything. And certainly $14/month.

From FairMormon

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Money_digging

Was not Joseph Smith a money digger?

Yes, but it was never a very profitable job for him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it.

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You brought up Moses as precedent for Joseph Smith. When I challenged your analogy between these two individuals, you objected (repeatedly) that we know very little about Moses--and even very little about Joseph Smith for the period in question! By your own words, you have invalidated any analogy between the two men.

[LeSellers]

In the 1834/35 account (Messenger & Advocate), in his 17th year, Joseph inquires to know if a supreme being exists, and receives such confirmation with a visitation in his bedroom. This is a contradiction--to want to know if a supreme being exists--if Smith had seen the Father and Son in the grove years earlier.

Nice try, but that's not what Oliver Cowdery's article said. The if, in this case, is not a conditional. It's a stipulation.

You will recollect that I mentioned the time of a religious excitement, in Palmyra and vicinity to have been in the 15th year of our brother J. Smith Jr's, age that was an error in the type-it should have been in the 17th.-You will please remember this correction, as it will be necessary for the full understanding of what will follow in time. This would bring the date down to the year 1823.

...

But if others were not benefited, our brother was urged forward and strengthened in the determination to know for himself of the certainty and reality of pure and holy religion. And it is only necessary for me to say, that while this excitement continued, he continued to call upon the Lord in secret for a full manifestation of divine approbation, and for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him. This, most assuredly, was correct-it was right. The Lord has said, long since, and his word remains steadfast, that for him who knocks it shall be opened, & whosoever will, may come and partake of the waters of life freely.

Messenger and Advocate, Vol. 1, Num 5, February 1835

Notice that Oliver did not say that Joseph was asking for a confirmation of the existence of God, but to know that he, Joseph, still had His approval, i.e., his calling as a prophet remained intact. To read it as you render it is to miss the point entirely and to distort it well beyond anything he meant as he wrote.

But such is the wont of anti-Mormons: they twist, distort, misrepresent, fabricate, and lie whenever the truth does not fit their preconceptions. Since that is virtually every time, they must ply their nefarious trade non-stop.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

You brought up Moses as precedent for Joseph Smith.

You claimed that Joseph must have been shy because he did not immediately publish his encounter with God and Jesus Christ. I only responded to your dismissal of his calling based on some assumed shyness.

One can push anything beyond its intended purpose. You did so in this case.

When I challenged your analogy between these two individuals, you objected (repeatedly) that we know very little about Moses--and even very little about Joseph Smith for the period in question!

Which is true in both cases. Unless you have more information than is readily available to me, I maintain that this position is true. I am just reading Josephus' account of Moses' youth, there ain't much there, either, and it includes much that is not in the Bible.

So, I charge you to tell us how you are certain of the "facts" you presented about Moses.

By your own words, you have invalidated any analogy between the two men.

I did not create an analogy between them except as to some imagined (on your part) shyness in Joseph Smith; and the subsequent rejection of his calling as a prophet based on that shyness.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Note that when the Book of Commandments was written (before it became the D&C), it said nothing of the "Urim and Thummim". The use of those words was added later to D&C 10 and you can verify this by looking at the history of the church.

That's not what you claimed. You said that "every word of Mormon doctrine" was received through the seer stone. I have no fight with the concept that some LDS doctrine was received through the stone. It's your blanket, all-encompassing assertion that is wrong.

First you claim that Joseph Smith was never paid $14 a month and ask for references, and now you contradict yourself by claiming it was not very profitable.

That's not what I claimed, either.

I asked for a reference that Joseph was paid anything for translating. Unless you think that "treasure seeking" and "translation" are the same activity, you are, once again, wrong.

Why, because you say so? Joseph Smith used his seer stones to find treasure before he wrote the book of Mormon.

Please show me where I rejected this. Because I did not.

I've aready linked the data, and if you choose to reject the testiomny of Thompson (who was Joseph's friend), ok, but it doesn't make it false, because money diggers believed in treasure guardians.

Some treasure seekers believed in treasure guardians. Just because some did does not prove that all did, and it does not prove that Joseph did.

And I still do not accept that your "data points" are incontrovertible proof that Thompson's testimony was as damning as your pretend, nor even that it was accurate.

Data points are based on facts. [Emphasis added for clarity.]

Yes, they are. But that does not make your conclusions facts. They may be correct, but you are still left to interpret them. And I submit that you have done so poorly.

When multiple people all say the same thing, you can reach a logical conclusion.

Are you familiar with the word "conspiracy"? The fact that multiple people say the same thing does not mean their statements are true.

If you choose to reject the data, that's up to you, and is a limit of your logic IMO.

I do not reject "the data", per se. But I can accept it (or parts of it, for we are not convinced that they are all correct anyway) while rejecting your biased conclusion and still remain very much within the bounds of valid logic.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You wrote:

You claimed that Joseph must have been shy because he did not immediately publish his encounter with God and Jesus Christ. I only responded to your dismissal of his calling based on some assumed shyness.

You've got the wrong guy. I never said that Joseph must have been shy. He explicitly said he wasn't a shy person.

[LeSellers]

You've got the wrong guy. I never said that Joseph must have been shy. He explicitly said he wasn't a shy person.

Sorry 'bout getting you and "thews" confused. You have much the same personality.

Nonetheless, irrespective of my innocent mistake, you are the one who took a simple, one-dimensional comparison and tried to run it well beyond its intended meaning. So, my other points remain unassailed and unassailable.

Lehi

[USU78]

jmordecai had said: In the 1834/35 account (Messenger & Advocate), in his 17th year, Joseph inquires to know if a supreme being exists, and receives such confirmation with a visitation in his bedroom. This is a contradiction--to want to know if a supreme being exists--if Smith had seen the Father and Son in the grove years earlier.

Nice try, but that's not what Oliver Cowdery's article said.

The Cowdery to Phelps letter: You will recollect that I mentioned the time of a religious excitement, in Palmyra and vicinity to have been in the 15th year of our brother J. Smith Jr's, age that was an error in the type-it should have been in the 17th.-You will please remember this correction, as it will be necessary for the full understanding of what will follow in time. This would bring the date down to the year 1823.

...

But if others were not benefited, our brother was urged forward and strengthened in the determination to know for himself of the certainty and reality of pure and holy religion. And it is only necessary for me to say, that while this excitement continued, he continued to call upon the Lord in secret for a full manifestation of divine approbation, and for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him. This, most assuredly, was correct-it was right. The Lord has said, long since, and his word remains steadfast, that for him who knocks it shall be opened, & whosoever will, may come and partake of the waters of life freely.Messenger and Advocate, Vol. 1, Num 5, February 1835

The if, in this case, is not a conditional. It's a stipulation.

Notice that Oliver did not say that Joseph was asking for a confirmation of the existence of God, but to know that he, Joseph, still had His approval, i.e., his calling as a prophet remained intact. To read it as you render it is to miss the point entirely and to distort it well beyond anything he meant as he wrote.

But such is the wont of anti-Mormons: they twist, distort, misrepresent, fabricate, and lie whenever the truth does not fit their preconceptions. Since that is virtually every time, they must ply their nefarious trade non-stop.

jmordecai. Seems to this observer that you need to do some very serious 'splainin'. If you pulled the gross distortion from an antiMo site or publication, 'fess up. Folks make mistakes in relying on others' research all the time. If, however, you created the gross distortion yourself, seems to this observer that it's up to you to apologize to the congregation and make right what you've done wrong.

[Pahoran]

It's not my opinion if I link he source, you ignore it, and I'm supposed to go back and re-write everything... your ploy is to just make it too hard to have a conversation with you.

Except that when you do link a source, and we actually read it, it doesn't actually say what you interpret it to mean. Your ploy is simply to assert your conclusions and falsely accuse those who disagree with your interpretation of "rejecting" or "ignoring" the data whether it actually supports you or not.

I can't link my sources from what you deem is an "anti" site (board rules), but I can link where they came from.

You certainly can link your sources for what you accuse LDS posters of saying in this thread. That is a weak excuse intended to cover for the fact that your accusation is entirely false.

Thus, it is established: when you previously wrote, "How can you ignore a written account by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey and claim it's invalid?" your question was a rhetorical one intended to create a false perception of the facts. IOW, it was nothing but a lie with a question mark at the end.

You just continue to ignore the data that you discount. Exactly what data do you discount as false, and by what data do you use to make the claim? Call for references please, as I have already given you the sources.

You have not given the sources for the specific points on which I CFR'd you. Issuing a CFR in response does not get you off the hook.

You are the accuser, Thews. The burden of supporting your accusations is yours.

Can you do it?

You may be right on this one... OK wrong name associated with the quote. By the way, claiming the data was a "peevish complaint" doesn't negate it. It may or may not add weight, but when multiple sources all say the same thing, it all adds up to one logical conclusion.

Not when the "multiple sources" are all merely passing along the same gossip.

In this case, attacking one source doesn't discount all others. You still have not presented anything that would indicate the testimony of Thompson is not to be believed. Again, it all makes sense and is what one would expect from people who sought treasure back then.

And all that that proves is that the two contradictory accounts of Thompson's testimony were both filtered through people who were familiar enough with treasure-hunting lore to make their interpolations plausible.

What you have failed to even attempt to show is why your preferred version of Thompson's testimony is to be preferred over the other. Since you have provided no method, other than your own inexhaustible malice, by which we can select one over the other, the question of what he actually said remains open.

Incidentally, it is quite disingenuous to refer to one gossip's recollection of what he thought he heard Thompson say as "Thompson's testimony," as though it was a reliable account of what he actually said. Because you and I both know that it is not.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Lloyd,

about a week ago, you wrote:

thews destroyed pahoran.

Any new thoughts on this?

Regards,

Pahoran

[thews]

Except that when you do link a source, and we actually read it, it doesn't actually say what you interpret it to mean. Your ploy is simply to assert your conclusions and falsely accuse those who disagree with your interpretation of "rejecting" or "ignoring" the data whether it actually supports you or not.

Note true. You ingnore the data posted and claim it's hearsay without backing it up. Example:

A) Joseph Smith was a money digger.

B) Money-diggers believed in treasure guardians.

C) Thompson said Joseph Smith claimed to see a dead Indian treasure guardian through his seer stone.

In the data I've already posted, which you ignore and blather on endlessly with rhetoric, you fail to formulate a hypothesis for why this testimony (by Thompson) wouldn

[Tango]

Nice try, but that's not what Oliver Cowdery's article said. The if, in this case, is not a conditional. It's a stipulation.

Notice that Oliver did not say that Joseph was asking for a confirmation of the existence of God, but to know that he, Joseph, still had His approval, i.e., his calling as a prophet remained intact. To read it as you render it is to miss the point entirely and to distort it well beyond anything he meant as he wrote.

But such is the wont of anti-Mormons: they twist, distort, misrepresent, fabricate, and lie whenever the truth does not fit their preconceptions. Since that is virtually every time, they must ply their nefarious trade non-stop.

Lehi

It is obvious that YOU have twisted the plain and simple truths to fit a deliusion. My 6 year old can read and understand exactly what this means. "IF" still means...IF...but to you it means something entirely made up.

[LeSellers]

It is obvious that YOU have twisted the plain and simple truths to fit a deliusion. My 6 year old can read and understand exactly what this means. "IF" still means...IF...but to you it means something entirely made up.

Sorry. "If" means much more than "if", as your erroneous claim. At least educated people (not 6-year-olds, especially those "educated" in a government-run, tax-funded

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

C) Thompson said Joseph Smith claimed to see a dead Indian treasure guardian through his seer stone.

This has never once been established that Thompson even claimed it. That is the whole point behind us saying that hearsay does not count as valid testimony. Please produce the documents were Thompson claimed it, not were other people claimed that Thompson said it.

This is an offical CFR. If you don't produce it I will report you to the mods and you will be done in this thread.