DiscussMormonism.com

Chap wrote:Do you have some kind of problem in relating what you say to facts that stare you in the face?

It's possible that he has them blocked, as he does so many posters here who inconvenience his presuppositions.

Chap wrote:

Tobin wrote:I think if you really read what I said and who said that you would understand it was Dr. Stanley B. Kimball that points that out. It is never acknowledged (and is ignored) by MormonThink itself.

I'm sorry?

Mormonthink puts the information on their webpage in a long quoted passage: including:

Such is the story of the Harris-Anthon-Mitchill encounter. In spite of the limited ability of Anthon and Mitchill (or anyone else in the world at that time) to pronounce judgment on the transcription, and despite the ridicule of Anthon regarding the story of angels and the destruction of Anthon's certificate, Harris was sufficiently convinced to go into debt and devote his full time to the support of the young prophet. As soon as possible, probably in April, Harris went to Harmony and served as Joseph's scribe until June 14, 1828.

and the passage is introduced by the words:

Dr. Stanley B. Kimball, professor of history at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville has speculated on the validity of Anthon's and Harris's claims in BYU Studies, Volume 10 pages 325-352 (1970) and offers this thoughtful analysis

And you say:

Martin Harris was apparently sufficiently convinced by it to provide the funds to publish the Book of Mormon. You fail to mention that on that page. Another example of why MormonThink is just a biased anti-Mormon website.

Do you have some kind of problem in relating what you say to facts that stare you in the face?

He obviously suffers severely from PTSD from the divine/extraterrestrial coitus preventus incident. But of all times for the divine/extraterrestrial to show up, that is perhaps the most unfortunate. It's deeply scarred his mentality beyond repair.

Thanks Grindael, Chap and Sock Puppet for proving Toben wrong once again.

Bill

Mormon Think wrote:Thanks Grindael, Chap and Sock Puppet for proving Toben wrong once again.

Bill

Really Bill? Would you care to respond to what I actually stated and explain why you have ignored the point that Martin Harris did provide funds to print the Book of Mormon as a result of the incident? If you are really presenting a fair and balanced presentation of the issues, it seems completely irresponsible that you fail to acknowledge that.

Tobin wrote:

Mormon Think wrote:Thanks Grindael, Chap and Sock Puppet for proving Toben wrong once again.

Bill

Really Bill? Would you care to respond to what I actually stated and explain why you have ignored the point that Martin Harris did provide funds to print the Book of Mormon as a result of the incident? If you are really presenting a fair and balanced presentation of the issues, it seems completely irresponsible that you fail to acknowledge that.

The guy is on another planet.
See:

Chap wrote:

Tobin wrote:I think if you really read what I said and who said that you would understand it was Dr. Stanley B. Kimball that points that out. It is never acknowledged (and is ignored) by MormonThink itself.

I'm sorry?

Mormonthink puts the information on their webpage in a long quoted passage: including:

Such is the story of the Harris-Anthon-Mitchill encounter. In spite of the limited ability of Anthon and Mitchill (or anyone else in the world at that time) to pronounce judgment on the transcription, and despite the ridicule of Anthon regarding the story of angels and the destruction of Anthon's certificate, Harris was sufficiently convinced to go into debt and devote his full time to the support of the young prophet. As soon as possible, probably in April, Harris went to Harmony and served as Joseph's scribe until June 14, 1828.

and the passage is introduced by the words:

Dr. Stanley B. Kimball, professor of history at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville has speculated on the validity of Anthon's and Harris's claims in BYU Studies, Volume 10 pages 325-352 (1970) and offers this thoughtful analysis

And you say:

Martin Harris was apparently sufficiently convinced by it to provide the funds to publish the Book of Mormon. You fail to mention that on that page. Another example of why MormonThink is just a biased anti-Mormon website.

Do you have some kind of problem in relating what you say to facts that stare you in the face?

Chap wrote:Do you have some kind of problem in relating what you say to facts that stare you in the face?

Yes, he does. TROLLBIN pontificates out of his ass, then gets called on it, then claims he said something totally different than what he said. This is his M.O. It probably comes from an attention deficit disorder of great magnitude, he doesn't have the ability to comprehend anything he reads, and so just makes crap up and then instead of admitting he is wrong, continues to act like a TROLL to the utter amusement of anyone who reads his BS.

I have a question wrote:http://www.ldsliving.com/20-Things-You-Didn-t-Know-About-Church-History/s/79974?utm_source=ldsliving&utm_medium=email

5. There are several surviving documents containing characters believed to have been drawn off of the gold plates.

None of these documents is the same one that Martin Harris took to Samuel Mitchill and Charles Anthon, but they were likely copied from early transcriptions of the characters from the plates.

Someone needs to tell the LDS Living crowd that you don't "draw"
characters, you "write" them. It's not purdy pictures. I was at a dinner once where an ignorant westerner asked a Chinese colleague of mine when he learnt to draw Chinese characters. He nearly jumped out of chair with indignation.

Drawing characters is only done when you have no idea what you're writing and instead are just making squiggly patters on a page. So maybe I did LDS Living a disservice. Joseph really did draw the characters onto the paper because they are indeed meaningless squiggles.

grindael wrote:Yes, he does. TROLLBIN pontificates out of his ass, then gets called on it, then claims he said something totally different than what he said. This is his M.O. It probably comes from an attention deficit disorder of great magnitude, he doesn't have the ability to comprehend anything he reads, and so just makes s*** up and then instead of admitting he is wrong, continues to act like a TROLL to the utter amusement of anyone who reads his BS.

When you wish to respond to what I said, please feel free. So far I'll note you have failed miserably to do so. Maybe you don't understand the problem here. Let me explain it to you. Let's say I cite a critic, but I fail completely to acknowledge what they said. It would be completely reasonable to point that out. As far as I know, Dr. Stanley B. Kimball is not affiliated with MormonThink and they are simply not just posting what he said, but citing him while elaborating on the issues around the Anthon certificate. I pointed out they fail to address this very important issue. And it is not surprising that someone like you is incapable of acknowledging that. You have your head so far up your ass that you think you are in a coal mine.

Tobin wrote: Let's say I cite a critic, but I fail completely to acknowledge what they said. It would be completely reasonable to point that out. As far as I know, Dr. Stanley B. Kimball is not affiliated with MormonThink and they are simply not just posting what he said, but citing him while elaborating on the issues around the Anthon certificate. I simply pointed out they fail to address this very important issue.

The Mormonthink introduction to their lengthy quote from Kimball said:

Dr. Stanley B. Kimball, professor of history at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville has speculated on the validity of Anthon's and Harris's claims in BYU Studies, Volume 10 pages 325-352 (1970) and offers this thoughtful analysis

But all the same, Tobin ... well, let's just say there is no way to make sense of his point on the assumption that he is on the same internet as the rest of us.

Hi mackay,

I have a question wrote:http://www.ldsliving.com/20-Things-You-Didn-t-Know-About-Church-History/s/79974?utm_source=ldsliving&utm_medium=email

5. There are several surviving documents containing characters believed to have been drawn off of the gold plates.

None of these documents is the same one that Martin Harris took to Samuel Mitchill and Charles Anthon, but they were likely copied from early transcriptions of the characters from the plates.

mackay11 wrote:Someone needs to tell the LDS Living crowd that you don't "draw"
characters, you "write" them. It's not purdy pictures. I was at a dinner once where an ignorant westerner asked a Chinese colleague of mine when he learnt to draw Chinese characters. He nearly jumped out of chair with indignation.

"Drawn", in the context of your first citation simply means to be extracted. Like water drawn from a well. Furthermore, members of my family who can actually read and write Mandarin wouldn't take offense to someone saying they "drew" characters. The supposed distinction between drawing and writing Chinese characters is in-sign-ificant (pun intended).

I can't imagine why your Chinese colleague thought he/she needed to become so indignant over such a non-issue. (Although it is an interesting anecdotal.)

mackay11 wrote:Drawing characters is only done when you have no idea what you're writing and instead are just making squiggly patters on a page.

Again...just for clarity....drawing water from a well simply means extracting water from a well. Is insisting otherwise only done when you have no idea what you're writing? ;0) (Please don't take offense. That was meant in good fun.)

mackay11 wrote:So maybe I did LDS Living a disservice. Joseph really did draw the characters onto the paper because they are indeed meaningless squiggles.

Perhaps those who doubt the Nephite record can start choosing a side. Either the Nephite characters are meaningless squiggles, as you say, or, as Stout and many of his follower say, the Nephite characters bear a striking resemblance to a surprising number of Tironian notae. Which is it?