"Out of a Hat": Rereading the Book of Mormon Translation Process

[LeSellers]

I reject your parallel arguments as false, and divination as wrong according to God.

Then you must reject a great deal of the Bible itself, since much of it is based on "lots" or which stone (Urim or Thummim) the high priest drew out of his chest pocket.

Joseph, as USU noted, used a divination cup (not rejected by the author of Genesis, nor any other), and he was among the most righteous of all biblical figures, hailed as the deliverer of the original Israel. Even Matthias was chosen by lot, and he was numbered among the Twelve.

Are you sure that all "divination [is] wrong according to God"? That seems to be an unbiblical stance to take.

Lehi

[thews]

Irony thick enough to choke on.

Your last three dozen posts here have been nothing BUT an attempt to dictate to us what we believe. Now that the shoe's on the other foot, you whine.

Clearly, you cannot refute USU's point, so you play the persecution card instead.

My what big internet muscles you have selek. I can clearly refute USU

[thews]

Then you must reject a great deal of the Bible itself, since much of it is based on "lots" or which stone (Urim or Thummim) the high priest drew out of his chest pocket.

I don't have to reject anything in the bible, but I would to agree with you. You can't even admit that "Urim and Thummim" are words used to describe seer stones that were used at least until 1843.

Joseph, as USU noted, used a divination cup (not rejected by the author of Genesis, nor any other), and he was among the most righteous of all biblical figures, hailed as the deliverer of the original Israel. Even Matthias was chosen by lot, and he was numbered among the Twelve.

Are you sure that all "divination [is] wrong according to God"? That seems to be an unbiblical stance to take.

Lehi

Lehi, believe what you want to as it's your right. I disagree with you, and the way I read Deuteronomy 18:10-12, divination, especially when used for immediate purpose for personal gain is what God considers an abomination. That's my opinion and you have a right to yours, but don't tell me I must align with your opinion because other Mormons agree with you, as I clearly do not agree with you.

[LeSellers]

Lehi, believe what you want to as it's your right.

My, that's generous of you.

I disagree with you, and the way I read Deuteronomy 18:10-12, divination, especially when used for immediate purpose for personal gain is what God considers an abomination.

Your original position was the divination was never correct. It appears you are back-peddling to limit the never to when used for personal gain.

Let me pose a direct and simple question. I do not expect a "yes" or "no", you are free to expand and explain as you feel necessary.

Was Joseph of Egypt an abominable man because he used a cup to divine the future?

4 And when they were gone out of the city, and not yet far off, Joseph said unto his steward, Up, follow after the men; and when thou dost overtake them, say unto them, Wherefore have ye rewarded evil for good? 5 Is not this it in which my lord drinketh, and whereby indeed he divineth? ye have done evil in so doing.

I await your answer.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

I disagree with you, and the way I read Deuteronomy 18:10-12, divination, especially when used for immediate purpose for personal gain is what God considers an abomination.

Your original position was the divination was never correct. It appears you are back-peddling to limit the never to when used for personal gain.

Let me pose a direct and simple question. I do not expect a "yes" or "no", you are free to expand and explain as you feel necessary.

Was Peter the Apostle an abominable man because he used lots to choose Matthias to replace Judas in the original Quorum of the Twelve?

26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

I await your answer.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

I disagree with you, and the way I read Deuteronomy 18:10-12, divination, especially when used for immediate purpose for personal gain is what God considers an abomination.

Your original position was the divination was never correct. It appears you are back-peddling to limit the never to when used for personal gain.

Let me pose a direct and simple question. I do not expect a "yes" or "no", you are free to expand and explain as you feel necessary.

Was Moses an abominable man because he used the Urim to dedicate Joshua as the new leader of Israel?

18 And the LORD said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hand upon him; 19 And set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation; and give him a charge in their sight. 20 And thou shalt put some of thine honour upon him, that all the congregation of the children of Israel may be obedient. 21 And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him after the judgment of Urim before the LORD: at his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he, and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation.

22 And Moses did as the LORD commanded him: and he took Joshua, and set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation: 23 And he laid his hands upon him, and gave him a charge, as the LORD commanded by the hand of Moses.

I await your answer.

Lehi

[Bernard Gui]

Okay, but just to clarify, Post #119 from Bernard indicates the U T was a piece of parchment that was sometimes placed inside the breastplate. So the UT was not the breastplate, it was not the stones, but was rather a piece of paper with God's name on it...correct?]

That is the opinion of the Temple Institute, since no eyewitness description of the Levitical UT exists.

In the other thread, I give more details about the Levitical UT and the Nephite interpreters. They are not

the same thing, but share the name.

Bernard

[thews]

My, that's generous of you.

Your original position was the divination was never correct. It appears you are back-peddling to limit the never to when used for personal gain.

Let me pose a direct and simple question. I do not expect a "yes" or "no", you are free to expand and explain as you feel necessary.

Was Joseph of Egypt an abominable man because he used a cup to divine the future?

I await your answer.

Lehi

You're just changing the question and I don't wish to play. You seem to be attempting a way to negate Deuteronomy 18:10-12 as if it means nothing. If you want to equate a story in the bible as being wrothy of negating Deuteronomy 18:10-12, then go ahead, but I'll still disagree. Using seer stones to "see" evil spirits guarding treasure before the Book of Mormon was written is what you're not talking about and I don't need to play the circular reasoning game with you. If you and your band of :highfivers: wish to negate Deuteronomy 18:10-12, again, go ahead. Seer stones found using the green rock of a necromancer (Sally Chase) used to "see" dead treasure guardians is something you seem to reject without any data other than you choose to reject it. The bible is prefect, and if you don't think so, that's your choice, but Deuteronomy 18:10-12 means something and it's very clear IMO when it comes to black magic and I don't need parallel arguments to blame shift something to force it to make sense.

[thews]

Your original position was the divination was never correct. It appears you are back-peddling to limit the never to when used for personal gain.

Let me pose a direct and simple question. I do not expect a "yes" or "no", you are free to expand and explain as you feel necessary.

Was Moses an abominable man because he used the Urim to dedicate Joshua as the new leader of Israel?

I await your answer.

Lehi

Why don't YOU answer a question Lehi? Do YOU believe seer stones used to "see" dead treasure guardians before the Book of Mormon was written is of God, or that the power (or supposed power) Joseph Smith used to "see" the treasure and dead treasure guardians came from God?

I await your answer to a question I asked you that doesn't re-word the question to force the square peg in the round hole to draw parallel lines that make the bible flawed. The bible is NOT FLAWED...it's perfect.

[LeSellers]

Why don't YOU answer a question Lehi? Do YOU believe seer stones used to "see" dead treasure guardians before the Book of Mromin [sic] was written is of God, or that the power (or supposed power) Joseph Smith used to "see" the treasure and dead treasure guardians came from God?

No. No, I do not, as you asked the question.

I do not believe, and you have not demonstrated, that Joseph saw "treasure guardians", and, specifically, no bloody Indian guardians, as you have asserted in the past.

Is that as straightforward as you want? Because I have already said the same thing. You have no proof (and I doubt there's any credible evidence) that Joseph saw Indian treasure guardians.

I await your answer to a question I asked you that doesn't re-word the question to force the square peg in the round hole to draw parall [sic] lines that make the bible flawed. The bible is NOT FLAWED...it's perfect.

It seems you have just studied geometry for all the similarities you have drawn.

Yet the Bible contradicts itself. On the one hand, Joseph, a righteous man, Moses, another righteous man, Peter, a third righteous man, all of whom used lots to make decisions (and, in Joseph's case explicitly for divination), are not abominable. Yet, God, in Deuteronomy, claims divination is always an abomination.

Sorry, for a "perfect" book, the Bible is a hard one to defend.

Call it what you will, making the Bible, the product of men's pens, into a perfect book is what you termed "forcing a square peg into the round hole".

Lehi

[LeSellers]

The bible [sic] is NOT FLAWED...it's perfect.

One wonders which Bible you are talking about? There are hundreds out there, and they do not all agree on much.

If you take the position that the original autographs were perfect, but that the current text may be flawed, I ask where are those originals?

I further ask you how this differs from the LDS position that "we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated [i.e[/g]., transmitted] correctly"?

And I ask how you can be secure in trusting the Bible when you do not, and cannot, know which parts have been transmitted correctly to us?

And I ask how you know that the Bible, as it stands today, is the Bible that God would have us have, since the men who chose the canon were not inspired to do so, and did not claim any such inspiration?

Lehi

[USU78]

You're just changing the question and I don't wish to play. You seem to be attempting a way to negate Deuteronomy 18:10-12 as if it means nothing.

You ignorance and arrogance don't change facts: The author of Deuteronomy links by comparison/contrast the evil practices of the Canaanites on the one hand and those of G-d's prophets on the other. Their practices are bad: our practices our good. Given that Joseph's divination and dreaminterpretation happened 400 odd years prior to the earliest possible date for Deuteronomy, we must be able to assume the author of Deuteronomy knew about Joseph's divination. Since that author is presumed to be the same as the author of Genesis, one would think that if the Joseph divination was a problem, something would show up saying something bad about it.

Since it does not, can we conclude other than G-d had no problem with Joseph's divination? That G-d puts Joseph in the category of prophet, in contrast to Balaam and the other Canaanite black hats?

If we cannot agree that Joseph's divination is of another kind than the bad kind of stuff the Canaanites were up to, then we have no basis for conversation. Does you ignorance refuse to accept that Joseph's divination is not the kind of divination the author of Deuteronomy wrote against? Does your arrogance refuse to accept that divination is not the issue, but rather that only one called by G-d may do such things?

G-d may choose whom He will to be His spokesman: He also may choose the method and instrumentality, if any, of how He communicates with His spokesman.

If you want to equate a story in the bible as being wrothy of negating Deuteronomy 18:10-12, then gi ahead, but I'll still disagree. Using seer stones to "see" evil spirits guarding treasure before the Book of Mormon was written is what I'm not talking about and I don't need to play the circular reasoning game with you. If you and your band of :highfivers: wish to negate Deuteronomy 18:10-12, again, go ahead.

Nobody's got a problem with you disbelieving JSJr was called by G-d or disbelieving that the method by which JSJr at any particular point in time communicated with G-d was approved by G-d.

It is your blanket, ignorant, arrogant pronouncements that every use of an instrumentality to communicate with G-d is subject to the Deuteronomic prohibition that is at issue here. In your ignorance and arrogance, you refuse to accept what is obvious from the text: If G-d approves, it's okay; if He doesn't, it's not okay. Express your opinion as opinion without the sweeping pronouncements, we don't have a problem with your posts.

Seer stones found using the green rock of a necromancer (Sally Chase) used to "see" dead treasure guardians is something you seem to reject without any data other than you choose to reject it.

Don't know and don't care about Sally Chase. True prophets are quite rare, so I would be reluctant to accept anything she claimed to have revealed without quite a bit more information.

The bible is prefect, and if you don't think so, that's your choice, but Deuteronomy 18:10-12 means something and it's very clear IMO when it comes to black magic and I don't need parallel arguments to blame shift something to force it to make sense.

That's because you're ignorant and arrogant. Even if we were to accept the questionable proposition that every word in Deuteronomy is "G-d-breathed," we would still have to figure out what to do about instances where Joseph, Moses, and others used methods that look a whole lot like the bad stuff in Deuteronomy 18. If they are all bad all the time, then we have to accept that Moses, Joseph, etc., are bad guys deserving G-d's judgment.

Your ignorant, arrogant refusal to see this is exasperating. But we can only teach truth to willing ears. Those whose arrogance prevents their shedding their ignorance we cannot teach.

Pity that.

[thews]

You ignorance and arrogance don't change facts: The author of Deuteronomy links by comparison/contrast the evil practices of the Canaanites on the one hand and those of G-d's prophets on the other. Their practices are bad: our practices our good. Given that Joseph's divination and dreaminterpretation happened 400 odd years prior to the earliest possible date for Deuteronomy, we must be able to assume the author of Deuteronomy knew about Joseph's divination. Since that author is presumed to be the same as the author of Genesis, one would think that if the Joseph divination was a problem, something would show up saying something bad about it.

Since it does not, can we conclude other than G-d had no problem with Joseph's divination? That G-d puts Joseph in the category of prophet, in contrast to Balaam and the other Canaanite black hats?

If we cannot agree that Joseph's divination is of another kind than the bad kind of stuff the Canaanites were up to, then we have no basis for conversation. Does you ignorance refuse to accept that Joseph's divination is not the kind of divination the author of Deuteronomy wrote against? Does your arrogance refuse to accept that divination is not the issue, but rather that only one called by G-d may do such things?

G-d may choose whom He will to be His spokesman: He also may choose the method and instrumentality, if any, of how He communicates with His spokesman.

Nobody's got a problem with you disbelieving JSJr was called by G-d or disbelieving that the method by which JSJr at any particular point in time communicated with G-d was approved by G-d.

It is your blanket, ignorant, arrogant pronouncements that every use of an instrumentality to communicate with G-d is subject to the Deuteronomic prohibition that is at issue here. In your ignorance and arrogance, you refuse to accept what is obvious from the text: If G-d approves, it's okay; if He doesn't, it's not okay. Express your opinion as opinion without the sweeping pronouncements, we don't have a problem with your posts.

Don't know and don't care about Sally Chase. True prophets are quite rare, so I would be reluctant to accept anything she claimed to have revealed without quite a bit more information.

That's because you're ignorant and arrogant. Even if we were to accept the questionable proposition that every word in Deuteronomy is "G-d-breathed," we would still have to figure out what to do about instances where Joseph, Moses, and others used methods that look a whole lot like the bad stuff in Deuteronomy 18. If they are all bad all the time, then we have to accept that Moses, Joseph, etc., are bad guys deserving G-d's judgment.

Your ignorant, arrogant refusal to see this is exasperating. But we can only teach truth to willing ears. Those whose arrogance prevents their shedding their ignorance we cannot teach.

Pity that.

Your ignorance of the facts is biasing your opinion and I really don't need to play with internet heros that can't acknowledge the truth and need to paint the bible as flawed to substantiate their arguments. Facts you can't deal with:

1) Joseph Smith found his white seer stone by looking through the green seer stone of Sally Chase. http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones

If you need to throw the bible under the bus to negate this that's your deal, bt this all happened before the book of Mormon was written and this is a historical fact.

2) Joseph Smith used his seer stones to translate the Book of Mormon, which makes the green stone of Sally Chase the main sotne doesn't it? Well, it does if you don't choose to ignore the facts. Those same seer stones were used for hire ($14 a month) and were not part of some biblical story, but done to appease dead humans (dead Indians according to the testimony of Jonathan Thompson at a trial which is not hearsay). None of this has anthing to do with what God approves of, but what Deuteronomy warns against. You can remain happy in your ignorance of these facts but cannot refute them, which is why you don't present data and give us all more of your opinion. Without data, it's just another opinion. I have provided you the data and you can reject it if you choose to, but you won't quote anything because you cannot.

3) The bible is prefect and is NOT FLAWED. If you need it to be flawed then ignore what you wish, but I won't listen to another lame blasphemous parallel argument which supposedly negates Deuteronomy 18:10-12 which is very clear and doesn

[thews]

No. No, I do not, as you asked the question.

I do not believe, and you have not demonstrated, that Joseph saw "treasure guardians", and, specifically, no bloody Indian guardians, as you have asserted in the past.

By what data do you make this claim? I have provided ample data to prove this as historical fact and it's eactly what money-diggers believed in.

Is that as straightforward as you want? Because I have already said the same thing. You have no proof (and I doubt there's any credible evidence) that Joseph saw Indian treasure guardians.

Ignore what you wish, but without data to counter mine, you just proved it true.

It seems you have just studied geometry for all the similarities you have drawn.

Yet the Bible contradicts itself. On the one hand, Joseph, a righteous man, Moses, another righteous man, Peter, a third righteous man, all of whom used lots to make decisions (and, in Joseph's case explicitly for divination), are not abominable. Yet, God, in Deuteronomy, claims divination is always an abomination.

OK, by your opinion Deuteronomy 18:10-12 is wrong.

Sorry, for a "perfect" book, the Bible is a hard one to defend.

Wow... as a Christian I would never say this, but ok, if that's what you believe.

Call it what you will, making the Bible, the product of men's pens, into a perfect book is what you termed "forcing a square peg into the round hole".

Lehi

I get it.. you believe the bible is flawed, and therefore God is not perfect. We disagree and I'm done with this conversation, because I believe God is prefect and doesn't change his mind.

[selek]

Your ignorance of the facts is biasing your opinion and I really don't need to play with internet heros that can't acknowledge the truth and need to paint the bible as flawed to substantiate their arguments. Facts you can't deal with:

1) Joseph Smith found his white seer stone by looking through the green seer stone of Sally Chase. http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones

Which is no way contradicts Joseph's calling by the Lord.

If you need to throw the bible under the bus to negate this that's your deal

. Nonsense. We don't need to throw the bible under the bus to support our arguments. That's YOUR problem.

For all the hysterical sheirking and desperate handwaving, you STILL haven't dealt with the fact that Moses, Joseph, and the Apostles all engaged in the very "divination" condemned in Deuteronomy.

If you insist on condemning Joseph of Palmyra on those grounds, then you must also condemn Moses, Joseph of Egypt, and the Apostles on the same grounds.

2) Joseph Smith used his seer stones to translate the Book of Mormon

A claim which you've failed to substantiate. We know his own seer stone was one method. The record clearly indicates there were others.

which makes the green stone of Sally Chase the main sotne doesn't it? Well, it does if you don't choose to ignore the facts.

No, it doesn't- and no facts need be ignored. The Mormons admit that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God- regardless of the specific instrumentality involved. You are attempting to string together a chain of events to suit your agenda- but just as correlation does not equate causation, your points are circumstantive rather than causitive.

Those same seer stones were used for hire ($14 a month) and were not part of some biblical story,

According to your interpretation of questionable testmonies.

The emphasis is YOUR interpretation. Other reasonable minds disagree.

but done to appease dead humans (dead Indians according to the testimony of Jonathan Thompson at a trial which is not hearsay).

You've been beating this drum and flogging this horse for sometime now. There are two contradictory versions of Thompson's testimony- neither given by Thompson himself. You have seized upon the more damaging one- and provided no evidence of its accuracy or veracity, and no hint as to why it is preferable to the other.

In point of fact, the "testimony" you cite is someone else's recollection and interpretation of what Thompson acutally said, and that is irretrievably and inescapably hearsay.

None of this has anthing to do with what God approves of, but what Deuteronomy warns against.

So you are prepared to condemn Moses, Joseph of Egypt, the Apostles, and Joseph Smith on the same pyre? They all violated the proscription in Deuteronomy- if you condemn one, you must condemn them all.

You can remain happy in your ignorance of these facts but cannot refute them, which is why you don't present data

This "present data" mantra you've developed as of late is both a dodge and a lie. You repeat it like some psuedo-European peasant trying to ward off evil spirits at Dracula's wake- and without about as much success.

We HAVE presented data- we have shown that other men- men whom you accept as prophets- behaved in precisely the same fashion as did Joseph Smith. It is YOU- not we- who cannot deal with the facts.

3) The bible is prefect and is NOT FLAWED.

Thank you for a clear and prescient demonstration of unthinking, reflexive dogmatism.

Your efforts at debate have devolved down to the repeating of mindless, reflexive slogans. There is no point in conversing with you further.

If you need it to be flawed then ignore what you wish, but I won't listen to another lame blasphemous parallel argument

Ah! The Galileo Accusation. "I won't listen to heretics!"

You have just fallen back on rote dogma as critical thought has failed you.

This statement, more than any other, is your white flag of surrender.

By calling us blasphemers and heretics, you have admitted that you have no defense but name calling.

Your opinion is your own but don't you dare tell me what I believe, because I know for a fact that what I believe is black magic is wrong and not of God.

If you have an answer to the force that allowed Joseph Smith to see the dead Indians and treasure guardians by all means let's see your data.

And yet the treasure guardians and dead INdians are the product of YOUR fevered imagination- not ours. That particular "data point" is YOUR interpretation and invention- not ours.

Why should we defend an asinine and inflammatory assertion that we do not believe?

If not, your opinion is just that... idle hearsay based on nothing.

Stop sloganeering. Deal with the facts.

If Joseph is to be condemned as a false prophet because he was a "diviner", then so too must Moses, Joseph of Egypt, and the Twelve Apostles be condemned.

If you present a standard to condemn Joseph, then you must apply that standard equally to your own Prophets.

[LeSellers]

By what data do you make this claim? I have provided ample data to prove this as historical fact and it's eactly [sic] what money-diggers believed in.

You have provided information that shows that some money-diggers believe in this, but you have not provided the tiniest bit of data that shows that Joseph Smith did.

If this concept is too difficult for you to handle, please just admit it and move on.

I get it.. you believe the bible [sic] is flawed, and therefore God is not perfect. We disagree and I'm done with this conversation, because I believe God is prefect and doesn't change his mind.

Please, I beg you, stop putting words in my mouth. Given their recent provenance, I can have no confidence that they will not prove infectious.

The fact that the Bible has flaws and is the product of men's pens and fallible judgment does not mean, in any way, that God is imperfect. To assert that I believe He is flawed is to slander me.

Lehi

[selek]

By what data do you make this claim? I have provided ample data to prove this as historical fact and it's eactly what money-diggers believed in.

You demonstrated that some money-diggers believed in it. You have not once demonstrated that Joseph held that belief.

OK, by your opinion Deuteronomy 18:10-12 is wrong.

No. In our opinion YOUR interpretation of Deuteronomy 18:10-12 is wrong.

Wow... as a Christian I would never say this, but ok, if that's what you believe.

And then you play the "I'm a Christian, you're not" card.

The sloganeering and well-poisoning are amusing, Thews- but they don't bolster your position at all.

I get it.. you believe the bible is flawed, and therefore God is not perfect.

Woe unto the liar for he shall be cast down.

You have just borne false witness against your brethren Thews, and- save that you repent- you will be judged and condemned for it.

We disagree and I'm done with this conversation, because I believe God is prefect and doesn't change his mind.

Keep throwing out the shrill dodges and sloganeering.

The more shrill you become, the more obvious it is that you are beaten.

[Vance]

1) Joseph Smith found his white seer stone by looking through the green seer stone of Sally Chase. http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones

Another CLASSIC thewism!!!

From the link,

"Joseph first used a neighbor's seer stone (probably Sally Chase, on the balance of historical evidence, though there are other possibilities) to discover the location of a brown, baby's foot-shaped stone. The vision of this stone likely occurred in about 1819

[thews]

Another CLASSIC thewism!!!

From the link,

"Joseph first used a neighbor's seer stone (probably Sally Chase, on the balance of historical evidence, though there are other possibilities) to discover the location of a brown, baby's foot-shaped stone. The vision of this stone likely occurred in about 1819

[thews]

You demonstrated that some money-diggers believed in it. You have not once demonstrated that Joseph held that belief.

No. In our opinion YOUR interpretation of Deuteronomy 18:10-12 is wrong.

And then you play the "I'm a Christian, you're not" card.

The sloganeering and well-poisoning are amusing, Thews- but they don't bolster your position at all.

Woe unto the liar for he shall be cast down.

You have just borne false witness against your brethren Thews, and- save that you repent- you will be judged and condemned for it.

Keep throwing out the shrill dodges and sloganeering.

The more shrill you become, the more obvious it is that you are beaten.

Your lack of data proves how "beaten" you are, if you choose to ignore all the factual data and continue to assert your "is not" opinion, then by all mean declare victory by ignorance... the facts stay the same, and the data (you know "facts") have been posted... you post nothing but tired opinion and I'm done attempting to converse with you on this unless you have some actual data to post to support your ignorant position.

[Deborah]

What is your point...

I believe it shows how inaccurately you portray information. Furthermore the fact that Joseph used seer stones prior to his translating the BOM is not evidence that he used these particular stones to translate.

[selek]

What is your point... other than you equate the color of the stones as somehow relevant?

The point is that you have - once again- been caught fudging your facts and misrepresenting your data.

At this point, your testimony is no more credible than Bill Clinton's.

Your posts could be easily paraphrased as, "I did not have intercourse with those sources" and "It depends upn what the meaning of 'is' is."

Do you ever acknowledge data? The with stone is the one Joseph Smith found while looking through the green stone of Sally Chase, when he "saw" it underground. The brown one was found while digging a well, and he supposedly "saw" that one too. These were both found before the book of Momron and were used for hire, and were later used to translate Mormon doctrine.

And yet this irrevocably destroys your argument that Chase's stone was the "primary source" and demonstrates that your quotations are not trustworthy.

Again... what is your point?

Not to speak for Vance, but it seems to me that his point is "that you are not a credible witness and have serious issues of integrity, basic honesty, and with misattribution and misrepresentation of your source materials".

Having been caught in a blatant fabrication and out-and-out falsehood, you have rendered all of your previous arguments suspect, and given validation to those who feel that you are either lying for the Lord or arguing deceitfully.

Your lack of data proves how "beaten" you are, if you choose to ignore all the factual data and continue to assert your "is not" opinion, then by all mean declare victory by ignorance... the facts stay the same, and the data (you know "facts") have been posted... you post nothing but tired opinion and I'm done attempting to converse with you on this unless you have some actual data to post to support your ignorant position.

Thank you for the foaming at the mouth spittle, Thews.

It is quite clear, however, that it is YOU- not we- who is desperate to avoid the facts.

We have demonstrated that people whom you accept as prophets are every bit as guilty of being diviners as was Joseph Smith.

You have repeatedly refused to engage that very salient point.

If Joseph is to be condemned as a false prophet because he was a "diviner", then so too must Moses, Joseph of Egypt, and the Twelve Apostles be condemned.

If you present a standard to condemn Joseph, then you must apply that standard equally to your own Prophets- or be condemned as a respecter of persons and a false prophet yourself.

[thews]

You demonstrated that some money-diggers believed in it. You have not once demonstrated that Joseph held that belief.

What do you want selek? Do you actually believe I can prove what Joseph Smith believed in? I can prove what he said, which is what Jonathan Thomspson said in the testimony of his trial when he claimed to see dead Indians through his seer stones. I can prove that Luman Walter taught Joseph Smith how to money-dig, and all you have is the some old "is not can't prove it" claim without any data to back it up. I can prove it and I did. Your game of continuing to post without anything but opinion is transparent to those with a critical thought process. Without data, it's just another opinion.

No. In our opinion YOUR interpretation of Deuteronomy 18:10-12 is wrong.

Stop telling me what my opinion is... YOU are wrong.

And then you play the "I'm a Christian, you're not" card.

The sloganeering and well-poisoning are amusing, Thews- but they don't bolster your position at all.

Woe unto the liar for he shall be cast down.

I am talking to the OP... I have no idea where your rant comes from, other than to ignore the facts and pretend you have a point to make. Do you selek, acnowledge Joseph Smith found his white stone while looking through the green stone of Sally Chase? yes/no

You have just borne false witness against your brethren Thews, and- save that you repent- you will be judged and condemned for it.

What a hypocrite. You judge me and claim the inverse.

Keep throwing out the shrill dodges and sloganeering.

The more shrill you become, the more obvious it is that you are beaten.

Keep ignoring the facts selek... the more opinon you throw out with nothing to back it up the more obvious it becomes. Without your :highfiving: support all you have is opinion... I have presented all the facts here and you have presented nothing but distortion (opinion) intended to mask the truth.

[selek]

What do you want selek? Do you actually believe I can prove what Joseph Smith believed in?

Considering the amount of time you spend putting words in his (and our) mouth, it would be nice.

I can prove what he said, which is what Jonathan Thomspson said in the testimony of his trial

False. Your reference is what someone claims Thompson said Joseph said. That's third-hand testimony at best, wild speculation at worst. It is hearsay- nothing more.

You don't have a single first- or even second hand- source attributing those beliefs to Joseph.

You are relying on what someone said someone else said Joseph said.

And you are making a fool of yourself doing so.

I can prove that Luman Walter taught Joseph Smith how to money-dig, and all you have is the some old "is not can't prove it" claim without any data to back it up. I can prove it and I did.

You claimed it. Proof prequires somethng more than mere assertion.

Your game of continuing to post without anything but opinion is transparent to those with a critical thought process.

More name calling- but a subsequent refusal to address the facts.

I am talking to the OP... I have no idea where your rant comes from, other than to ignore the facts and pretend you have a point to make. Do you selek, acnowledge Joseph Smith found his white stone while looking through the green stone of Sally Chase? yes/no

Are you, Thews, prepared to admit that Moses, Joseph of Egypt, and the Twelve Apostles were every bit as guilty of necromancy as Joseph of Palmyra? yes/no

What a hypocrite. You judge me and claim the inverse.

I catalogue your sins and call you to repentance.

Keep ignoring the facts selek... the more opinon you throw out with nothing to back it up the more obvious it becomes.

Keep ducking, dodging, and weaving, Thews. Your hypocrisy is on display for all to behold.

You have been caught- again- misrepresenting your sources and delivering blatant falsehoods in order to pursue your stated objective of smearing Joseph Smith.

You have been caught lying in order to condemn Joseph and you refuse to engage (let alone defeat) the one critical argument that destroys your entire house of cards.

You have repeatedly (fearfully?) refused to engage that very salient point.

If Joseph is to be condemned as a false prophet because he was a "diviner", then so too must Moses, Joseph of Egypt, and the Twelve Apostles be condemned.

If you present a standard to condemn Joseph, then you must apply that standard equally to your own Prophets- or be condemned as a respecter of persons and a false prophet yourself.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You have repeatedly (fearly) refused to engage that very salient point.

He has rethewsed to engage and it seems that sometimes he is even conthewsed at some of the facts.

Like, he has a hard time understanding the differnce between a 1st and a 2nd hand account. It seems he does not know what hearsay is either.