Voldemort = He Who Must Not Be Named = Kevin?

[_charity]

runtu, are you promising me that if I tell you the person and the circumstance you will not tell anyone, either by a public posting or by pm, who it is? I don't want it to get back to Kevin.

Hatemonger? I wouldn't go that far. But you see what he is doing to me and FAIR. He calls names. That is such a juvenile action.

Waiting for your reply.

Or are you worried that if you are put in a position of going against Kevin on this he will turn on you?

[_Runtu]

runtu, are you promising me that if I tell you the person and the circumstance you will not tell anyone, either by a public posting or by pm, who it is?

Yes.

I don't want it to get back to Kevin.

You have my word.

Hatemonger? I wouldn't go that far. But you see what he is doing to me and FAIR. He calls names. That is such a juvenile action.

I agree with you.

Waiting for your reply.

Or are you worried that if you are put in a position of going against Kevin on this he will turn on you?

You're kidding, right? I don't even know Kevin very well, and why would I care who "turns on me"?

[_charity]

[/charity]I don't know how he received the Book of Abraham, and I think the efforts of the critics to assume that he was looking at the papyri, pretending Old Testament understand the Egyptian characters and then "translating" them is a false picture.

Except that's exactly what he said he was doing.

Why do you think that? Because of the KEP stuff? Nothing that is included is any kind of comprehensive tranlsation of anything.

Thank you. And I can understand how you view the Book of Abraham.

If the Book of Abraham is in any way said to be true, it must be, as you said, not a "translation" as we know it. Of course, that means that we must disregard the word of the translator.

Joseph Smith used the word "translate" differently than we do. We think of a person knowing two languages and taking a document in one language, and getting it into another. Obviously, that was not the case with the Book of Mormon. Reading the words off a seer stone is not that process. And yet he called it a translation. So why do we think that whehn he used the word "translate" referring to the Book of Abraham, that he suddenly was using a different defintion?

I don't know if it is you or not, because I only know the person's real life name. I have no intention of calling anyone out. When I pm'ed pacman, I did so in response to a question that appeared on the MA&D message board. And since I was quoting only Kevin's own words, I thought I was ending gossip. The way to end speculation is with the truth. I had not predicted pacman's response. What I said was in a pm. He took what I said and went off on a tangent. I have written to him to express my displeasure over it.

Well, then, please confirm that you did not mean Kevin.

As soon as you promise.
.[/quote]

[cacheman]

Why do you think that? Because of the KEP stuff? Nothing that is included is any kind of comprehensive tranlsation of anything

You're correct, but Joseph himself said he translated the Egyptian and as has been pointed out got a certificate from Mr. Chandler attesting to that fact.

Joseph Smith used the word "translate" differently than we do. We think of a person knowing two languages and taking a document in one language, and getting it into another. Obviously, that was not the case with the Book of Mormon. Reading the words off a seer stone is not that process. And yet he called it a translation. So why do we think that whehn he used the word "translate" referring to the Book of Abraham, that he suddenly was using a different defintion?

Because we know what he meant in the case of the Book of Abraham. He got a certificate saying that his translations of the hieroglyphics were correct. The book itself says it's a translation of the papyrus, yet you folks twist and turn to make it not so. I don't have a problem with the catalyst theory, except that it goes against what Joseph said he did.

As soon as you promise.

By my count, I've promised 3 times.

[_Chap]

Joseph Smith used the word "translate" differently than we do. We think of a person knowing two languages and taking a document in one language, and getting it into another. Obviously, that was not the case with the Book of Mormon. Reading the words off a seer stone is not that process. And yet he called it a translation. So why do we think that whehn he used the word "translate" referring to the Book of Abraham, that he suddenly was using a different defintion?.

There is a discussion of this specific issue going on elsewhere on the "Loran/Coggins/Droopy MAD post" thread. I suggest you might like to read my most recent post and comment.

I think that after reading that you may have to extend your defensive position from your present 'Joseph Smith used the word "translate" differently than we do' to something more like 'Joseph Smith used the word "Egyptian" differently than we do'.

[_charity]

runtu just suggested that I clear up something. He says that I said in the post which set this whole thing off over here that the person I was referring to was a current poster on this board.

So, then some of you, including Kevin, said that could only refer to him.

Is that what this has been about? I don't think I said that. I didn't intend to. I was talking about a situation where I knew a person had taken a real hit to their ego in an exchange with a critic. And I have just given runtu the details.

Kevin evidently admits to that being a description of what happened to him. But then he maintains he did not suffer sucn an ego hit that it turned him around. He can say that if he wants. I will accept his statement at face value. But it doesn't explain the vitriol that he aims at me.

[_Pokatator]

runtu just suggested that I clear up something. He says that I said in the post which set this whole thing off over here that the person I was referring to was a current poster on this board.

So, then some of you, including Kevin, said that could only refer to him.

Is that what this has been about? I don't think I said that. I didn't intend to. I was talking about a situation where I knew a person had taken a real hit to their ego in an exchange with a critic. And I have just given runtu the details.

Kevin evidently admits to that being a description of what happened to him. But then he maintains he did not suffer sucn an ego hit that it turned him around. He can say that if he wants. I will accept his statement at face value. But it doesn't explain the vitriol that he aims at me.

I'm sorry you can't see how you bring this on yourself. It's rarely 100% one way, it takes two to tango.

I really don't care how this turns out but either way you have proven yourself a gossip-monger. I don't buy your, I don't know where Kevin lives line but that is a trivial matter. I think you have your hands full trying to cover your anatomy on this matter. Pacman, I am sure has had his anatomy handed to him for gossiping in public.

[_charity]

I'm sorry you can't see how you bring this on yourself. It's rarely 100% one way, it takes two to tango.

I really don't care how this turns out but either way you have proven yourself a gossip-monger. I don't buy your, I don't know where Kevin lives line but that is a trivial matter. I think you have your hands full trying to cover your anatomy on this matter. Pacman, I am sure has had his anatomy handed to him for gossiping in public.

Kevin's own words are gossip? Who would have thought.

[_Pokatator]

I'm sorry you can't see how you bring this on yourself. It's rarely 100% one way, it takes two to tango.

I really don't care how this turns out but either way you have proven yourself a gossip-monger. I don't buy your, I don't know where Kevin lives line but that is a trivial matter. I think you have your hands full trying to cover your anatomy on this matter. Pacman, I am sure has had his anatomy handed to him for gossiping in public.

Kevin's own words are gossip? Who would have thought.

You're being very confusing here Charity.

You were referring (gossiping) about someone else to Pacman, but they are Kevin's words?

You were referring to someone else to Pacman, that has a moniker of Voldemort but it isn't Kevin even though he has been referred to that at times.

You were referring to someone else to Pacman that coincidently follows Kevin's situation to a tee, but it isn't Kevin. "Who would have thought."

Far too many coincidences don't you think you need to just come clean?

[_dartagnan]

Well let's hear it. Oh wait, you can't. This former Mormon made charity promise not to tell anyone in the world, except you. Yea, that makes a lot of sense. As if this serves any purpose in validating charity's claim. This is like saying I won't show you the gold plates. I'll show your friend and then you have to accept it.

You said the poster doesn't post here, which proves charity was referring to me. Please note the original exchange between harmony and charity clearly indicates that charity implied the poster did post here. Since I am the only poster on this forum who fits the characterization of the rumor it seems clear charity had me in mind.

Again, for those who might be falling for charity's little deception game:

Harmony: "We have at least a couple of posters who once posted on the Mormon Apologists team. Now they don't. Same style, same logic, different conclusions."

Charity: "From what I hear about at least one, it wasn't a message board which changed his mind...rumor I heard was that someone got his head handed to him in a basket when he was caught unprepared, got his pride whomped, and then wanted to blame his bruised ego on the Church, the general authorities, and every TBM who wouldn't lick his wounds to make him feel better."

Harmony clearly referred to MD posters who onced posted at MAD. charity proposes to refute her claim by spreading an admitted "rumor" she heard. He point would not be valid unless that person posted here. So, runtu, whatever it is charity told you in pm, the person you found out about could not have been the person she was talking about in this case.

Having said this, I find it suspicious that an apologist turned critic would be embarrassed or scared at the prospect of us knowing who he or she is, especially since this person doesn't seem to have a problem with idiots like charity using his or her experience to further the cause of his or her former faith. It simply doesn't add up. I mean what is the worst thing that could happen... someone might use this incident in a reckless manner to toot her own horn. Oh, too late, charity already did that.