DiscussMormonism.com

Oh dear God! Danny has completely lost it.

His little gathering at the bookstore has moved him above Van Hale on the idiotic explanation scale.

Come and gaze at the giant pile of steamy crap that he parlayed out in the bookstore!

Making up the book "on the fly" would have also been impossible for the unlearned young man, Peterson said.

True. I completely agree. However, how about Smith reading transcripts placed in the hat? HMMMMMmmmmm????

Now read this gem!

Peterson said the Book of Mormon was revealed to Smith through a seer stone.

Smith never went through the golden pages of the ancient record, but instead put the seer stone in a hat, then buried his head in the hat to shut out ambient light.

The stone lit up a line of text, about 30 words at a time, which Smith then dictated to his scribe. Once the text was transcribed correctly, the line disappeared and a new line came into focus, Peterson said, quoting eye witnesses who were 19th Century farmers associated with Smith.

If Smith had negative feelings toward his wife, the seer stone quit working until Smith apologized. Then the translation could continue, Peterson said.

Reaaahhhiilllly? What if Emma had ill feelings towards him? Oh yeah then the damn thing would have NEVER worked.

Denial C. Peterson went waaayyy out on a limb... Read the entire article.. unfrigginbelievable! Can he back this all up with solid evidence?

One of his scribes, Martin Harris, found a stone that looked much like the seer stone and when Smith wasn't looking, switched it. When Smith buried his head in the hat, the stone failed to respond. The seer stone was put back in place and translation continued, Peterson said.

That silly Martin! I wonder if he put a piece of dog crap in there too?

Yet Danny admits this:

No single account of how Smith translated the Book of Mormon exists, but scholars have assembled bits and pieces to put the story together. Smith, himself, never disclosed how he did it, Peterson said.

So then, will one of you Danny suckups please run over and tell him what a fool I think he is and then ask him, why is this NOT taught to the children??? Desbooks would sell many peep stones to primary kids for damn sure.

Edit to add:

Look at the graphic for the article:



And then read how the great Mo'pologist debunks THAT IMAGE!

A common belief among LDS members is that Smith put up a blanket or sheet between him and the scribe, primarily Oliver Cowdery, so the scribe couldn't see Smith working with the plates. But Peterson said the only sheets that were put up were to screen the work from folks passing by the windows, more often at the Peter Whitmore home where much of the translation took place.

Someone please contact the idiot editor of mormontimes.com and tell them that Daniel said they should use this image instead:



And Danny wonders why we make fun of him?

I think your obsession over a certain apologist keeps leading you to ad hominem.

How many people actually showed up for this?

I think it axiomatice that: the degree to which one may be prejudice, and the level of one's intellectual maturity, may be born out in the way one chooses to characterize those with opposing views.

Use of phrases like "steaming pile of crap" reveal much about the author. Good thing s/he has the cover of anonimity to protect his/her real-life reputation, ironically while in the process of smearing someone else's real-life reputation. What a guy!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

wenglund wrote:I think it axiomatice that: the degree to which one may be prejudice, and the level of one's intellectual maturity, may be born out in the way one chooses to characterize those with opposing views.

Use of phrases like "steaming pile of crap" reveal much about the author. Good thing s/he has the cover of anonimity to protect his/her real-life reputation, ironically while in the process of smearing someone else's real-life reputation. What a guy!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is there an actual point about the subject of the thread in your post?

harmony wrote:

wenglund wrote:I think it axiomatice that: the degree to which one may be prejudice, and the level of one's intellectual maturity, may be born out in the way one chooses to characterize those with opposing views.

Use of phrases like "steaming pile of crap" reveal much about the author. Good thing s/he has the cover of anonimity to protect his/her real-life reputation, ironically while in the process of smearing someone else's real-life reputation. What a guy!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is there an actual point about the subject of the thread in your post?

Yes...and one I think would be self-evident to those who aren't irony deficient. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Couldn't do a switcheroo with the stones. so obviously that stone had something going for it. I was thinking it would be nice to encase the stone in glass amd have it hooked to the the top of the lecturn at the Conference Center. That way Old Testament could help aid outgoing sermons.

wenglund wrote:

harmony wrote:

wenglund wrote:I think it axiomatice that: the degree to which one may be prejudice, and the level of one's intellectual maturity, may be born out in the way one chooses to characterize those with opposing views.

Use of phrases like "steaming pile of crap" reveal much about the author. Good thing s/he has the cover of anonimity to protect his/her real-life reputation, ironically while in the process of smearing someone else's real-life reputation. What a guy!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is there an actual point about the subject of the thread in your post?

Yes...and one I think would be self-evident to those who aren't irony deficient. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm still not seeing any comment about the subject of the thread. I only see ongoing comments about the posters. What is your comment about the presentation? Especially about the idea that Joseph didn't use the plates at all, but relied completely on the rock in the hat.

harmony wrote:

wenglund wrote:

harmony wrote:

wenglund wrote:I think it axiomatice that: the degree to which one may be prejudice, and the level of one's intellectual maturity, may be born out in the way one chooses to characterize those with opposing views.

Use of phrases like "steaming pile of crap" reveal much about the author. Good thing s/he has the cover of anonimity to protect his/her real-life reputation, ironically while in the process of smearing someone else's real-life reputation. What a guy!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is there an actual point about the subject of the thread in your post?

Yes...and one I think would be self-evident to those who aren't irony deficient. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm still not seeing any comment about the subject of the thread. I only see ongoing comments about the posters. What is your comment about the presentation? Especially about the idea that Joseph didn't use the plates at all, but relied completely on the rock in the hat.

To help you understand the point and the irony, let me turn your question back on itrself. Is there an actual point about the subject of the thread in your questions to me?

If that does not suffice, please look above where I quoted from the OP (I've bolded it for your benefit). One may rationally gather from the quote that I was speaking to what the author of the OP (i.e. the person setting forth the subjectmatter) had said on the subject, and one may thus rationally (or self-evidently) surmize that the point I was making about the quote was the "point about the subject of the thread".

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Boaz & Lidia:

I fail to see why you find fault with DCP's presentation. Let's face it, he (DCP) told the truth, did he not? He responsibly declined to perpetuate the mythology about the plates being present, a hat being absent, etc., right?

You should be applauding him, not castigating him.