Darth J wrote:I am sure that whether the Church is really forthcoming about the folk magic origins of the Book of Mormon really isn't a direction you would care to go, despite how gleeful you are to see Infymus supposedly get "pwned."
I think it is for the best if you do as you said and refrain from using the slang term "pwned" in the future.
To be clear, the direction I didn't want to go is being engaged with DJ in some over-wraught insigificant quibble in which he employs sophism vainly trying to twist my words and thoughts into something they never were formulated to be. I'm on to you. No need playing these games again here. Oh...I don't' know if I can take your game totally away from ya. it si fun sometimes. But this time..no. It ain't happenin'. Peace again to you, sir.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
In my opinion, you should have directed this troubled sister to some discussion with her fellow believing Latter-day Saints.
I would have sent her to Mormon Dialogue and suggested that she register and start a thread asking whether it is true that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in a hat to translate the golden plates.
Surely, the experience of immediately being denounced as an anti-Mormon troll by a mob of hyper-defensive board members would resolve her concerns and strengthen her testimony.
It'd be teh same result if ya send her here, except the name-calling and hostilities with reach new highs.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Darth J wrote:Do you dispute that Joseph Smith's intimates stated that Joseph Smith used his seer stone in a hat to translate the golden plates?
No, goofball. man you'll try to start a fight over anything. It just so happens that my perusals of infymus' site have been very cursory. So I can't really judge every thing his site says, so i qualified it with a "supposed". Anywho, It ain't that big a deal that he was caught lying. Just fix your site, offer and apology and move on. I fear it won't be so easy.
This thread is talking specifically about Joseph Smith using his folk magic prop as the means to produce the Book of Mormon. So was your orgasmic response that Infymus had been "pwned," where you talked about "supposed" truths.
You also unfailingly claim without evidence that people are making a big deal over nothing and misrepresenting things, but joyfully respond to Manfred cherry picking a single quote that is not indicative of what the Church actively teaches its members about the origins of the Book of Mormon by bursting into the hyperbolic ecstasy of saying that Infymus was "pwned." Either you intentionally misused that word, or you are trying to look cool by using a slang term that you really don't understand.
It ain't that big a deal that you were caught lying. Just fix your post, offer an apology, and move on. I fear it won't be so easy.
In my opinion, you should have directed this troubled sister to some discussion with her fellow believing Latter-day Saints.
I would have sent her to Mormon Dialogue and suggested that she register and start a thread asking whether it is true that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in a hat to translate the golden plates.
Surely, the experience of immediately being denounced as an anti-Mormon troll by a mob of hyper-defensive board members would resolve her concerns and strengthen her testimony.
It'd be the same result if ya send her here, except the name-calling and hostilities with reach new highs.
Probably. And, just like Mormon Dialogue, that result would come from believing Mormons.
See, e.g.: The Nehor's responses to Dad of a Mormon.
Darth J wrote:I am sure that whether the Church is really forthcoming about the folk magic origins of the Book of Mormon really isn't a direction you would care to go, despite how gleeful you are to see Infymus supposedly get "pwned."
I think it is for the best if you do as you said and refrain from using the slang term "pwned" in the future.
To be clear, the direction I didn't want to go is being engaged with DJ in some over-wraught insigificant quibble in which he employs sophism vainly trying to twist my words and thoughts into something they never were formulated to be. I'm on to you. No need playing these games again here. Oh...I don't' know if I can take your game totally away from ya. it si fun sometimes. But this time..no. It ain't happenin'. Peace again to you, sir.
In other words:
--stemelbow does want to gloat about someone being "pwned" because of a non-representative cherry-picked quote.
--When evidence suggests that Infymus did not get "pwned" at all, it is "an overwrought, insignificant quibble."
Darth J wrote:This thread is talking specifically about Joseph Smith using his folk magic prop as the means to produce the Book of Mormon. So was your orgasmic response that Infymus had been "pwned," where you talked about "supposed" truths.
You also unfailingly claim without evidence that people are making a big deal over nothing and misrepresenting things, but joyfully respond to Manfred cherry picking a single quote that is not indicative of what the Church actively teaches its members about the origins of the Book of Mormon by bursting into the hyperbolic ecstasy of saying that Infymus was "pwned." Either you intentionally misused that word, or you are trying to look cool by using a slang term that you really don't understand.
It ain't that big a deal that you were caught lying. Just fix your post, offer an apology, and move on. I fear it won't be so easy.
Hey I might have to reconsult Kishkumen and my 12 year old about the use of that term. I can't really say I'm any sort of expert on it. But, as I understand it, I think it fits nicely here. I take no joys, in particular, in showing people their errors. Now, settle down, DJ, realize infymus demonstrated some deception and lets all move on.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Darth J wrote:This thread is talking specifically about Joseph Smith using his folk magic prop as the means to produce the Book of Mormon. So was your orgasmic response that Infymus had been "pwned," where you talked about "supposed" truths.
You also unfailingly claim without evidence that people are making a big deal over nothing and misrepresenting things, but joyfully respond to Manfred cherry picking a single quote that is not indicative of what the Church actively teaches its members about the origins of the Book of Mormon by bursting into the hyperbolic ecstasy of saying that Infymus was "pwned." Either you intentionally misused that word, or you are trying to look cool by using a slang term that you really don't understand.
It ain't that big a deal that you were caught lying. Just fix your post, offer an apology, and move on. I fear it won't be so easy.
Hey I might have to reconsult Kishkumen and my 12 year old about the use of that term. I can't really say I'm any sort of expert on it. But, as I understand it, I think it fits nicely here. I take no joys, in particular, in showing people their errors. Now, settle down, DJ, realize infymus demonstrated some deception and lets all move on.
Very good. Settle down and admit that you were trumpeting Manfred engaging in deception by trying to make it appear that the Church is open and forthright about the seer stone, and let's all move on.
Darth J wrote:Probably. And, just like Mormon Dialogue, that result would come from believing Mormons.
See, e.g.: The Nehor's responses to Dad of a Mormon.
Or we can see nearly any response you offer to LDS as a good indication of the same.
I am not aware of anyone stopping you from providing an example of where a believing Mormon asked a question about Mormon history that was unknown to them, and I called them an anti-Mormon troll.
--stemelbow does want to gloat about someone being "pwned" because of a non-representative cherry-picked quote.
Does anybody else see, now what i mean by "...over-wraught insigificant quibble in which he employs sophism vainly trying to twist my words and thoughts into something they never were formulated to be." I don't know if any critics will acknowledge it, but this is a pretty good demonstration of such.
--When evidence suggests that Infymus did not get "pwned" at all, it is "an overwrought, insignificant quibble."
What evidence are you claiming? Infymus clearly said, did he not, that LDS are forbidden by leaders to learn this type of stuff. But Manfred clearly demonstrated that one LDS leader at least taught this stuff at some point. Infymus also claimed he never said LDS leaders have forbidden LDS people to learn this stuff. Obviously he is lying or plain forgot that he said as much. I don't care either way. he can simply go back, fix his error, admit his error, apologize, and move on. I'd welcome such a fresh approach, in fact.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.