John Gee responds

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: John Gee responds

Post by _Kishkumen »

Kevin Graham wrote:It is an imaginary manuscript for which there is zero evidence. It is a bold apologetic statement that was forced into Hauglid's book by Gee. The gist of it is that Gee and Schryver have been arguing that none of the extant KEP manuscripts can be the original dictated manuscripts, because that would prove Joseph Smith was a fraud. And since they begin with the bedrock principle that Joseph Smith couldn't have been a fraud, their delusion about an missing Manuscript "0" will always be found in their rhetoric.


It all started with missing plates.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: John Gee responds

Post by _Kishkumen »

Kevin Graham wrote:This is just one more example of Dan Peterson's despicable cowardice.


I confess that I was neither amused nor impressed.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: John Gee responds

Post by _Shulem »

Kishkumen wrote:It all started with missing plates.


Yes, you're right about that. And, just think for a second if only the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 were originally printed by the Church but not the vignette. Would today's apologists be willing to accept the actuall vignette had it surfaced with the missing papyri? I doubt it. They would have said that Facsimile No. 3 doesn't mate with the Explanations that Joseph Smith revealed and would have vied for a missing vignette -- or the missing vignette theory.

LDS apologists are dishonest people. They deny, deny, deny.

Paul O
_Mike Reed
_Emeritus
Posts: 983
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:28 pm

Re: John Gee responds

Post by _Mike Reed »

Rumor has it that Chris never even made the infamous Facebook post, and that the post it was actually a Hoffman forgery--if true, this would mean 1) Gee fell for a Hoffman forgery this time, 2) Hoffman has internet access, and 3) that we have another potential candidate for guessing who Scratch really is.
_Drifting
_Emeritus
Posts: 7306
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:52 am

Re: John Gee responds

Post by _Drifting »

DCP wrote:Now, while tithes are voluntary, taxes are not.


This is, quite simply, untrue.

Both tithes and taxes are voluntary in that you do not have to pay them. However, non payment of either renders some potentially severe consequences. Don't pay your taxes and you end up in jail for a period of time whilst on earth. Non payment of tithes renders your potential eternal exaltation null and void for time and all eternity.

Technically Daniel - non payment of tithing carries a way bigger penalty than that resulting in non payment of taxes...
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: John Gee responds

Post by _Buffalo »

Drifting wrote:
DCP wrote:Now, while tithes are voluntary, taxes are not.


This is, quite simply, untrue.

Both tithes and taxes are voluntary in that you do not have to pay them. However, non payment of either renders some potentially severe consequences. Don't pay your taxes and you end up in jail for a period of time whilst on earth. Non payment of tithes renders your potential eternal exaltation null and void for time and all eternity.

Technically Daniel - non payment of tithing carries a way bigger penalty than that resulting in non payment of taxes...


Oh yes. Mormon republicans love to make that argument, but it only works if you discount the afterlife. In which case, why are you a Mormon?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: John Gee responds

Post by _Runtu »

Kevin Graham wrote:Gee said Chris contacted his receptionist, but the way I remembered it was his receptionist was on Chris' Facebook, read Chris's comment about the rumor, and then posted that she knew Gee was in Europe and had been asked by him to photocopy a bunch of pages related to the papyri, which was consistent with the rumor that Gee was in France to do work on his discovery. I just went to the original Facebook thread to see, and I notice that she has removed her comment from the discussion.

I could be wrong and maybe Chris did contact her, but I got the impression that she saw the thread and decided to throw in her own two cents, unsolicited.


You're not wrong. I can confirm that this is exactly what happened, as I saw Chris's original post and the secretary's response to it.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: John Gee responds

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Runtu wrote:
Kevin Graham wrote:Gee said Chris contacted his receptionist, but the way I remembered it was his receptionist was on Chris' Facebook, read Chris's comment about the rumor, and then posted that she knew Gee was in Europe and had been asked by him to photocopy a bunch of pages related to the papyri, which was consistent with the rumor that Gee was in France to do work on his discovery. I just went to the original Facebook thread to see, and I notice that she has removed her comment from the discussion.

I could be wrong and maybe Chris did contact her, but I got the impression that she saw the thread and decided to throw in her own two cents, unsolicited.


You're not wrong. I can confirm that this is exactly what happened, as I saw Chris's original post and the secretary's response to it.


So either Gee or his receptionist lied about Chris.

Sigh.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: John Gee responds

Post by _Runtu »

Kevin Graham wrote:So either Gee or his receptionist lied about Chris.

Sigh.


Lie, witty quip, it's all the same.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_CaliforniaKid
_Emeritus
Posts: 4247
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:47 am

Re: John Gee responds

Post by _CaliforniaKid »

Kevin Graham wrote:So either Gee or his receptionist lied about Chris.

More likely, a mixture of assumption and miscommunication. Not a big deal.
Post Reply