Message from the FAIRisees

[_3sheets2thewind]

Dear Apostates,

Please be on notice that you all are lacking in many areas, the most significant of which is your failure to understand that any time this citation "David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ—By A Witness to the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon (Richmond, Missouri, 1887)" is given, regardless of the actual quote used, your the reader are on notice that Joseph Smith put his face as a method in translating the Book of Mormon.

For example when you read "According to David Whitmer 'Joseph .... used a seer stone'" (see foot note) and the footnote is "David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ—By A Witness to the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon (Richmond, Missouri, 1887)" then it is your fault for not discerning the full and complete statement of David Whitmer.

So apostates, there you have it. It is your fault for no resurrecting a complete statement of David Whitmer from 1887. And it also does not matter that LDS Church publications selectively quote the David Whitmer 1887 statement; remember it is your fault.

Lovingly,

Your Demigods and arbiters of truth,

Glory Be to Us - Ceo and Directors of FAIR.

[_son of Ishmael]

"FAIRisees" - I like that

[_3sheets2thewind]

"FAIRisees" - I like that

the accuracy of the label is terrifically hilarious to me.

[_ldsfaqs]

Dear Apostates,

Please be on notice that you all are lacking in many areas, the most significant of which is your failure to understand that any time this citation "David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ—By A Witness to the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon (Richmond, Missouri, 1887)" is given, regardless of the actual quote used, your the reader are on notice that Joseph Smith put his face as a method in translating the Book of Mormon.

For example when you read "According to David Whitmer 'Joseph .... used a seer stone'" (see foot note) and the footnote is "David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ—By A Witness to the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon (Richmond, Missouri, 1887)" then it is your fault for not discerning the full and complete statement of David Whitmer.

So apostates, there you have it. It is your fault for no resurrecting a complete statement of David Whitmer from 1887. And it also does not matter that LDS Church publications selectively quote the David Whitmer 1887 statement; remember it is your fault.

Lovingly,

Your Demigods and arbiters of truth,

Glory Be to Us - Ceo and Directors of FAIR.

Dear Apostates,

You should learn the difference between sharing a "spiritual" historical detail which relays a "particular message", compared to simply regurgitating every single historical fact. The Translation occurred mostly through the use of "stones" whether they were the Urim & Thummim or the Seer Stone which was essentially the same thing, just not as specticals.

You should learn that the use of a "hat" to simply hide light in those particular instances of translation whatever object used, has no real relevance to anything. Thus, there is no need whatsoever to mention in the vast majority of historical tellings of the translation that a "hat" was used.

You should also learn, that the "hat" is well mentioned in LDS history, including the ones that you people even know the statement from. Yes, it's so "hidden", that every single "learned" LDS knows about it.

You should also learn the difference between an "Artist Renditioning" which portray's an IDEA, that of "translating" (Joseph & Plates), compared to full historical accuracy.

Even more importantly, you should learn the difference between the actual history and your perverted views of it, since only about 50% of the translation process involved a "hat", while the rest including various things, or at the end nothing at all, simply pure revelation.

Thus, your LOVE of wanting the Church to show the translation with the use of a hat, is JUST AS MUCH OF A LIE as you think the Church is being. Of course, the Church isn't actually lying or trying to hide anything, because it's simply selecting artists renditionings that best portray the idea of Joseph Translating the Book of Mormon. Thus, you're even more liars.... because the usage of a hat is not how the Book of Mormon was translated. It's PART of the objects used, but it's not HOW.... it was done.

You all forget one other important detail..... The translation occurred generally with someone on the other side of a sheet writing things down. The Church almost never has portrayed that either. The most used presentation is simply Joseph at a Table with the plates in front of him. The Church doesn't portray the "multiple" scribes, the multiple methods and items used during the translating, and on and on all kinds of details omitted that can't be shown by a simple picture.

Please tells us how many details can a "Picture" show of Joseph Translating that the Church should include??? hmmmm???? Completely impossible and impractical.... Thus the Church uses a simple artist renditioning to portray the basic idea, which is translating the plates.

Ignorant hateful slime...!

[_Darth J]

Here's a simple artistic rendering of Abraham Lincoln that pictures an IDEA of the Gettysburg Address (or possibly the Emancipation Proclamation), compared to full historical accuracy. It is completely impossible and impractical to portray the basic idea of the Gettysburg Address (or the Emancipation Proclamation; I'm not sure) in any way other than this simple artistic rendering:



Similarly, here is a basic artistic rendering of the Apollo moon landing. It is completely impossible or impractical to portray the IDEA of the Apollo moon landing with all the historical details, so this is a simple portrayal of the basic idea:

[_bcspace]

It is completely impossible or impractical to portray the IDEA of the Apollo moon landing with all the historical details, so this is a simple portrayal of the basic idea

Sounds like the justifications used for incidents that actually did not happen even though described in Obama's book

[_son of Ishmael]

It is completely impossible or impractical to portray the IDEA of the Apollo moon landing with all the historical details, so this is a simple portrayal of the basic idea

Sounds like the justifications used for incidents that actually did not happen even though described in Obama's book

How did you manage to pull Obama into this post?

[_son of Ishmael]

...Even more importantly, you should learn the difference between the actual history and your perverted views of it, since only about 50% of the translation process involved a "hat", while the rest including various things, or at the end nothing at all, simply pure revelation....Ignorant hateful slime...!

"... since only about 50% of the translation process involved a "hat" - CFR

[_son of Ishmael]

...Even more importantly, you should learn the difference between the actual history and your perverted views of it, since only about 50% of the translation process involved a "hat", while the rest including various things, or at the end nothing at all, simply pure revelation....Ignorant hateful slime...!

"... since only about 50% of the translation process involved a "hat" - CFR

Bump. Still waiting for a response...

[_Bob Loblaw]

Sounds like the justifications used for incidents that actually did not happen even though described in Obama's book

Then you agree that the church is at least as dishonest as your bogeyman, Obama.