what's in the Church's vault:

[_Mister Scratch]

Mr. Scratch: In any case, for all we know. . . .

charity: For all we know? For all we know? That even tops an earlier remark, "I get the impression that. . . ." You guys must not have a clue as to what constitutes evidence. Shssssssh.

Charity---let's not forget that it was you who suggested that the Church would have "destroyed" damning documents. Quite an odd suggestion from one who believes that the Church is such a "moral" and "honest" institution, eh?

[_charity]

I guess my only complain with Charity is that I don't feel that she can see her self ever being snide, or pert, or sometimes coming off with a superior attitude or that she ever gives a neener neener. I recognize that I do and I do it too often. I also believe that Charity has been pert, etc. with many that don't deserve it like I do. The one I think that of, in particular, is Runtu. I think he is one of kindest here and kinder than Charity. I would do myself a great service to be more like Runtu on this board. For the most part Charity is a kind person too.

All and all I am glad Charity is here.

I try not to be snide, but sometimes "snideness" gets away frokm me. runtu and I go back a long ways. He is one of my favorite board people. So sometimes if he says something that hurts my feelings, it affects me more than if the same thing comes from someone else.

In any case, for all we know. . . .

charity: : For all we know? For all we know? That even tops an earlier remark, "I get the impression that. . . ." You guys must not have a clue as to what constitutes evidence. Shssssssh.


Charity---let's not forget that it was you who suggested that the Church would have "destroyed" damning documents. Quite an odd suggestion from one who believes that the Church is such a "moral" and "honest" institution, eh?

Here is where I have to really fight not to be snide. But I am gritting my teeth. I did not suggest the Church had destroyed anything. I was just trying to cool the jets of the conspiricists who think there is something really horrible, terrible, damning, etc. in the vault. They should think, instead, that IF there had been anything really bad that the Church would have destroyed it. Then they could cluck their tongues over how awful it was that the Church would destroy stuff. That is a much more logical position to take. But it still does not rise to any level of proof of anything above the "for all we know" level.

edited to add: I think I have the quote thing down, now. Thanks for all the help.

[_Runtu]

I try not to be snide, but sometimes "snideness" gets away frokm me. runtu and I go back a long ways. He is one of my favorite board people. So sometimes if he says something that hurts my feelings, it affects me more than if the same thing comes from someone else.

I'm sorry if I have hurt your feelings; it was not intentional. If I say anything that hurts you personally, please let me know. I'd rather not be trading barbs.

[_Pokatator]

As to snide remarks, I actually went back and reviewed the last 6-7 major threads and looked only for Charity's snide remarks. I compiled a list of many. But, I also looked at mine in the process. I have many. Overall, I believe mine are worse, but I know they are worse and sadly and unfairly, I expect that behavior out of me more than I expect it out of Charity. I guess my only complain with Charity is that I don't feel that she can see her self ever being snide, or pert, or sometimes coming off with a superior attitude or that she ever gives a neener neener. I recognize that I do and I do it too often. I also believe that Charity has been pert, etc. with many that don't deserve it like I do. The one I think that of, in particular, is Runtu. I think he is one of kindest here and kinder than Charity. I would do myself a great service to be more like Runtu on this board. For the most part Charity is a kind person too.

And your point is . . . what, exactly?

I guess my point is a self revelation to myself. I reviewed some posts to show Charity that she was using snide remarks, pert answers, neener neeners, and etc. and what I found was that Charity was guilty in my opinion but so was I. I didn't like what I found about myself. I felt I deserved what I got. But in all that I read I also felt that Runtu was getting a undeserved dose from Charity.

I guess my point was also a form of an apology to Charity.

My point is also that I never thought that Charity should ever be considered unwelcome.

Why did you ask?

[_Imwashingmypirate]

I was told just recently by someone who is in a position to know that the Urim and Thummim are not there. I asked the question, specifically, because it was my understanding that possession of the Urim and Thummim is what makes a person a seer. And since we sustain the prophet and apostles as seers, that must mean the Church is in possession of them. I was told my understanidng was not correct and they are not in the Church vault, or anywhere else in the possession of the Church.

Thanks for that list Phaedrus.

And who is "someone in a position to know"? Are we to rely on your vague representation? Not persuasive (as usual).

But as an aside, I would not think that the Urim and Thummim would be in the vault, since they are purely mythical and never existed. Same with the sword of Laban and the breastplate and all the other made-up stuff.

Do you really believe that. I doubt that greatly. I think its a load of crud.

[_Mister Scratch]

Charity---let's not forget that it was you who suggested that the Church would have "destroyed" damning documents. Quite an odd suggestion from one who believes that the Church is such a "moral" and "honest" institution, eh?

Here is where I have to really fight not to be snide. But I am gritting my teeth. I did not suggest the Church had destroyed anything.

Actually, you did. Or rather, you suggested that it would be more likely that that Church would "destroy" damning documents rather than keep them sealed up in F Vault.

I was just trying to cool the jets of the conspiricists who think there is something really horrible, terrible, damning, etc. in the vault. They should think, instead, that IF there had been anything really bad that the Church would have destroyed it. Then they could cluck their tongues over how awful it was that the Church would destroy stuff.

Well, we *do* know that the Church "destroys"/ "revises" stuff, as was the case with the infamous Elder Poehlman talk.

That is a much more logical position to take. But it still does not rise to any level of proof of anything above the "for all we know" level.

I'm afraid I don't see how/why that position is any more logical, and frankly, I am quite stunned that a TBM such as yourself would endorse it.

[_Dr. Shades]

And your point is . . . what, exactly?

I guess my point is a self revelation to myself. I reviewed some posts to show Charity that she was using snide remarks, pert answers, neener neeners, and etc. and what I found was that Charity was guilty in my opinion but so was I. I didn't like what I found about myself. I felt I deserved what I got. But in all that I read I also felt that Runtu was getting a undeserved dose from Charity.

I guess my point was also a form of an apology to Charity.

My point is also that I never thought that Charity should ever be considered unwelcome.

Why did you ask?

I asked because I wasn't sure what message you wished your reader to walk away with. I know I was confused.

But what does Runtu have to do with any of this?

[_Mister Scratch]

Let's speculate a bit. The sort of "secret" material I have always imagined being hidden in F Vault would be stuff like, say, accounts written by Joseph Smith that he had a sexual relationship with Helen Mar, or proof that Joseph Smith tried in earnest to translate the Kinderhook Plates. My question (in lieu of Charity's comments) is: if the Church was aware of this material, would it be more likely to destroy it, or hide it in F Vault? There is a theoretical option 'C': release it to the public, but I consider this a non-option since, as we all know, the public is not permitted to access certain portions of the Church records.

[_Pokatator]

And your point is . . . what, exactly?

I guess my point is a self revelation to myself. I reviewed some posts to show Charity that she was using snide remarks, pert answers, neener neeners, and etc. and what I found was that Charity was guilty in my opinion but so was I. I didn't like what I found about myself. I felt I deserved what I got. But in all that I read I also felt that Runtu was getting a undeserved dose from Charity.

I guess my point was also a form of an apology to Charity.

My point is also that I never thought that Charity should ever be considered unwelcome.

Why did you ask?

I asked because I wasn't sure what message you wished your reader to walk away with. I know I was confused.

But what does Runtu have to do with any of this?

But in all that I read I also felt that Runtu was getting a undeserved dose from Charity.

I am sure I post confusing posts, been accused of that lately by Charity and now you. So, take it that Runtu had nothing to do with or whatever. I just mentioned what I mentioned. So even if it ain't clear....... so what.

I'm not sure why I got on your hot seat.

It's not important for me to post here anymore, so I won't.

[_Dr. Shades]

I'm not sure why I got on your hot seat.

??? You didn't get on my "hot seat" at all.

It's not important for me to post here anymore, so I won't.

Holy cow dude, don't just leave. I simply asked for clarification is all. What's better--that someone wishes to understand what you say enough to ask about it, or for someone to just ignore what you say and move on?