I am an agent of Satan

[_Darth J]

It's okay, stemelbow. I accept you for who you are, and that includes accepting that you are not man enough to admit your misplaced gloating over Manfred's misleading response.

[_stemelbow]

de·cep·tion

–noun

1.
the act of deceiving; the state of being deceived.
2.
something that deceives or is intended to deceive; fraud; artifice.

—Synonyms
2. trick, stratagem, ruse, wile, hoax, imposture.

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.

Again, you have made a twist in this discussion to quibble about nothingness. manfred offered one quote from 1993 in which an apostle clearly stated the seer stone was used in translation. I don't take that to mean anything about "the Church is open and forthright". The point is real simple. Infymus said the leaders, which would include an apostle by the way, forbid members from knowing this stuff. Clearly that isn't true, even Infymus suggests as much. Manfred's post clearly showed that wasn't true.

[_stemelbow]

It's okay, stemelbow. I accept you for who you are, and that includes accepting that you are not man enough to admit your misplaced gloating over Manfred's misleading response.

Gloating... pep pep...you are full of it, DJ.

[_Infymus]

It is also hoped that current members of the LDS Church will find the answers that Mormon leaders have forbidden them from seeing.

You got me stemelbow, shucks and darn and heck.

It was 2005 when I wrote that particular paragraph, so I can't recall what frame of mind I was in at the time. There are two parts to this. One, the Church does not teach that Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat. On the other hand, the Church sternly warns against reading any anti-Mormon material that would say Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat.

When Church leaders speak, the thinking has been done. Ultimately it is the same thing as forbidding them from reading anti-Mormon material.

The JOD is a "forbidden" book. Try bringing it in and teaching from it. The GA's can cherry pick from it, but you can't, unless you want endless worthiness meetings.

I will change the paragraph when I get time. I will leave it pretty much the same - but add to both forbidden material AND omitted material.

[_Darth J]

It's okay, stemelbow. I accept you for who you are, and that includes accepting that you are not man enough to admit your misplaced gloating over Manfred's misleading response.

Gloating... pep pep...you are full of it, DJ.

It is certainly telling when you fall back on trolling to deflect from your lack of integrity, stemelbow.

[_stemelbow]

You got me stemelbow, shucks and darn and heck.

It was 2005 when I wrote that particular paragraph, so I can't recall what frame of mind I was in at the time. There are two parts to this. One, the Church does not teach that Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat. On the other hand, the Church sternly warns against reading any anti-Mormon material that would say Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat.

When Church leaders speak, the thinking has been done. Ultimately it is the same thing as forbidding them from reading anti-Mormon material.

The JOD is a "forbidden" book. Try bringing it in and teaching from it. The GA's can cherry pick from it, but you can't, unless you want endless worthiness meetings.

I will change the paragraph when I get time. I will leave it pretty much the same - but add to both forbidden material AND omitted material.

I figured you wouldn't make this all easy. Oh well.

[_Darth J]

de·cep·tion

–noun

1.
the act of deceiving; the state of being deceived.
2.
something that deceives or is intended to deceive; fraud; artifice.

—Synonyms
2. trick, stratagem, ruse, wile, hoax, imposture.

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.

Again, you have made a twist in this discussion to quibble about nothingness. manfred offered one quote from 1993 in which an apostle clearly stated the seer stone was used in translation. I don't take that to mean anything about "the Church is open and forthright". The point is real simple. Infymus said the leaders, which would include an apostle by the way, forbid members from knowing this stuff. Clearly that isn't true, even Infymus suggests as much. Manfred's post clearly showed that wasn't true.

Manfred's post clearly implied that the Church really is open and forthright about the origins of the Book of Mormon. That is dishonest. Your pride, which the Prophet Ezra Taft Benson condemned, led you to crow about how this dishonesty was scoring points for your team.

"Chapter 31: Honesty," Gospel Principles, (2009)

There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

I'd take a careful look at D&C 121, stemelbow. You are trying to cover up your sins instead of repenting. The Lord has said that doing so means amen to your priesthood.

[_stemelbow]

It is certainly telling when you fall back on trolling to deflect from your lack of integrity, stemelbow.

You are trying desperately to get the "trolling" thing to stick, huh? If your posts weren't so focused on trying to twist stem's (and others) words into diabolical diatribes you're accusations might be taken more seriously, at least by those who aren't prone to accept whatever you say due to your critic posture.

[_stemelbow]

Manfred's post clearly implied that the Church really is open and forthright about the origins of the Book of Mormon. That is dishonest.

My goodness. Manfred didn't even include any commentary. He merely quoted a snippet and nothing more. How you make that into something it isn't is well very DJ-esque. You are very good and goading people into these silly discussions, you tricky devil you (please don't get all dramatic and read that as an actual devil).

[_The Nehor]

Without reading the OP or anything but the topic I'd just like to say:

Yes, you are.

And a crappy member while you were one.