DiscussMormonism.com

I hear defenders say this as if it exonerates or leaves room of plausibility for their beliefs.

I think they are backing and stepping right into a steaming pile of horse s*** when they do this.

First, the face in the hat, looking at the magic rock that was one of JSJr's props in running his glass-looking scam is attested to by the three scribes. That is pretty detailed, and a detail that the LDS Church likes to breathe mention of only very rarely, preferring the images of JSJr studiously reading from the gold plates themselves--but for which I am not aware there is historical evidence.

More damning however is the fact that I've yet to hear one TBM/defender say he or she has studied out the method described by the three scribes, prayed for HG confirmation of it being the way that this divine-assisted translation occurred and proudly announce such to the world.

Have any of the TBMs that read this board studied out the methodology described by the three scribes, prayed earnestly about it and received HG confirmation that this methodology was the divinely-assisted translation method?

If you are a TBM and have not, why haven't you? It goes the the crux of the matter of the Book of Mormon's genuineness.

I think they are backing and stepping right into a steaming pile of horse s*** when they do this.

This is exactly what the critics do when they yellow journalistically present the head in hat theory without also mentioning what the report said about why it was done that way.

bcspace wrote:

I think they are backing and stepping right into a steaming pile of horse s*** when they do this.

This is exactly what the critics do when they yellow journalistically present the head in hat theory without also mentioning what the report said about why it was done that way.

And in your response, you did not tell us why it was done that way. So per your excoriation standard, your reply was, well, 'yellow journalism'.

And in your response, you did not tell us why it was done that way. So per your excoriation standard, your reply was, well, 'yellow journalism'.

You're the one making accusations regarding translation methods. You already know these things unless you suffer from Fortigurn's Lazy Research.

bcspace wrote:

I think they are backing and stepping right into a steaming pile of horse s*** when they do this.

This is exactly what the critics do when they yellow journalistically present the head in hat theory without also mentioning what the report said about why it was done that way.

I have never seen an official Church report on why the translation was done this way. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks

This is exactly what the critics do when they yellow journalistically present the head in hat theory without also mentioning what the report said about why it was done that way.

I have never seen an official Church report on why the translation was done this way. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks

Sure. There are several instances at LDS.org you can avail yourself of. "A Treasured Testament" by Elder Russell M. Nelson, Ensign, July 1993 would be one.

Sorry, I must have been confused bcspace, I thought you meant something that actually explained why it was done with a rock in a hat, rather than with the Uma Thurman.

Sorry, I must have been confused bcspace, I thought you meant something that actually explained why it was done with a rock in a hat, rather than with the Uma Thurman.

I think you are indeed confused as nowhere has the LDS Church claimed he did it with just a rock.

bcspace wrote:

Sorry, I must have been confused bcspace, I thought you meant something that actually explained why it was done with a rock in a hat, rather than with the Uma Thurman.

I think you are indeed confused as nowhere has the LDS Church claimed he did it with just a rock.

I see that you may also be confused. For clarity.
You said the 'report' explained 'why' it was done that way, referring to the rock in a hat - I just want to see the explanation of 'why' that you spoke of.

You said the 'report' explained 'why' it was done that way, referring to the rock in a hat - I just want to see the explanation of 'why' that you spoke of.

Feel free to read the article. The explaination is there.