LDS

[Empress]

Where would one ask to see a seer stone?

Hogwarts?

 

[Akhenaten]

The difference between American slang and Australian slang produces an unusual mental image in that sentence.

Oops.

While that is kind of funny, I hope I haven't offended anyone and of course I intended spook to mean ghost.

I imagine that second link of yours would present all kinds of problems for Janadele. I wonder if a non-preachy response will be forthcoming.

 

[jsfisher]

Oops.

While that is kind of funny, I hope I haven't offended anyone and of course I intended spook to mean ghost.

Fear not. It was clear from context which meaning you meant for spook (although it was a delightfully amusing word choice).

 

[Stomatopoda]

Where would one ask to see a seer stone?

Where would a seer see a seer's stone if a seer's stone could be seen? At the seer's scene.

 

[Pup]

While that is kind of funny, I hope I haven't offended anyone and of course I intended spook to mean ghost.

It also does means ghost in the U.S., and I figure most folks obviously realized it was an unintended example of how the colonies have diverged over the years.

 

[skyrider44]

That's absurd, A.) We are told that the plates and urim and thummim were taken to heaven by an angel. B.) I don't know for a fact that the Church doesn't have some effects in their vault to prove the church true but that doesn't change the FACT that the Mormon Church, if it had them, does not show them so you STILL have to take it on faith just as you would the guy on the corner.

So, the truth comes out. In Post 2928 you post a quote by showmevegas in which he/she asks if the church has "any [emphasis added] physical items related [emphasis added] to Joseph Smiths interpreting the golden tablets--hat, sheet, seer stones, tablets or portions thereof."

You answered NO, with no qualification whatsoever. I asked you to prove it. . .to name a source. Obviously, you cannot, which is yet another instance in which you pass off your biased opinion as fact. Here (above) you find yourself eating crow; i.e., "I don't know for a fact that the Church doesn't have some effects in their vault to prove the church is true. . . ."

Revealing, to say the least.

: skyrider, while I have your attention, you will admit that blacks were not allowed the priesthood until 1979, right?

I assume you weren't born yesterday.

 

[StankApe]

semantic nonsense

if you have evidence for the existence of these artifacts, present it. Or else admit that they don't exist. the null hypothesis is that they do not exist. You claim they do, burden of proof lies with you.

 

[skyrider44]

You are using yourself as a source? Sorry but that simply will not due.

Amusing. A while back you were defending your "right" to use yourself as a source--a practice you continue to this day. Uh, that simply will not do.

 

[jsfisher]

So, the truth comes out....

Give it a rest. You style of debate by irrelevant quibble is tiresome and not helping build your case at all.

How about we return to an open topic: Were Brigham Young's racist comments while LDS Prophet the holy scripture for a while? Did the Church ever admit Young's racist remarks were wrong?

 

[skyrider44]

semantic nonsense

if you have evidence for the existence of these artifacts, present it. Or else admit that they don't exist. the null hypothesis is that they do not exist. You claim they do, burden of proof lies with you.

You have it backwards, StankApe. The burden of proof lies with he who made the claim. Because he could not provide that proof, he had to admit that he had, ah, er, uh misspoken.

 

[StankApe]

He can't prove a negative. He can't prove no artifacts exist. It's an impossible task.


The null hypothesis is there are no artifacts that prove Joseph Smith's story. I would love to see any evidence to the contrary.

 

[skyrider44]

Give it a rest. You style of debate by irrelevant quibble is tiresome and not helping build your case at all.

How about we return to an open topic: Were Brigham Young's racist comments while LDS Prophet the holy scripture for a while? Did the Church ever admit Young's racist remarks were wrong?

Not at all happy, are you, with the fact that one of your chief spokespersons got caught trying to pass off his opinion as fact? (It's a habit with him.) There is nothing irrelevant about misrepresenting information in debate.

 

[StankApe]

I thought people caught up in the spirit of Jesus were all happy and jolly

 

[skyrider44]

He can't prove a negative. He can't prove no artifacts exist. It's an impossible task.

Then perhaps he should have chosen his response more carefully.

Spin it as you will, he tried to posit his opinion as fact.

 

[StankApe]

He doesn't have to prove a NO, you have to prove a YES.

That's how this works, how it has always worked.

don't like it? give up your silly religion or don't post on this forum.

 

[jsfisher]

Not at all happy, are you, with the fact that one of your chief spokespersons got caught trying to pass off his opinion as fact? (It's a habit with him.) There is nothing irrelevant about misrepresenting information in debate.

So, you continue with irrelevance. My happiness, which you completely misjudge -- oh, wait! that was an unqualified opinion of yours, wasn't it? Double standard much? -- is not at all important to the question of Brigham Young's racist statements.

Care to stay on that topic, or will you continue to evade?

 

[DragonLady]

You have it backwards, StankApe. The burden of proof lies with he who made the claim. Because he could not provide that proof, he had to admit that he had, ah, er, uh misspoken.

Okay; let's assume RandFan mispoke.

Now. What are those artifacts? Where are they? How can we see them? Have any of them been declared authentic by professionals outside the church? Do they still function today?

 

[RandFan]

So, the truth comes out. In Post 2928 you post a quote by showmevegas in which he/she asks if the church has "any [emphasis added] physical items related [emphasis added] to Joseph Smiths interpreting the golden tablets--hat, sheet, seer stones, tablets or portions thereof."

You answered NO, with no qualification whatsoever. I asked you to prove it. . .to name a source. Obviously, you cannot, which is yet another instance in which you pass off your biased opinion as fact. Here (above) you find yourself eating crow; i.e., "I don't know for a fact that the Church doesn't have some effects in their vault to prove the church is true. . . ."

Revealing, to say the least.

It was an assumption. A reasonable one. You called me on it and I honestly admitted that I could not prove that there were no artifacts. That's called honesty.

I assume you weren't born yesterday.

I'm going to take that as a yes, Janadele says that blacks could hold the priesthood prior to 1978. According to her it was only "Negros" that were denied the priesthood. So, we have Cat and you that says "yes" and Janadele that says no. Do you think Janadele is lying?

 

[Foster Zygote]

It also does means ghost in the U.S., and I figure most folks obviously realized it was an unintended example of how the colonies have diverged over the years.

I'd forgotten about the racist connotation for "spook". It wasn't one of the more popular racial epithets where I grew up. Other than ghosts, I generally associate the word with slang for a CIA agent or other spy.

 

[Foster Zygote]

He can't prove a negative. He can't prove no artifacts exist. It's an impossible task.


The null hypothesis is there are no artifacts that prove Joseph Smith's story. I would love to see any evidence to the contrary.

There's a '67 Dodge Dart orbiting a star in M31. Your inability to prove that it isn't there adds weight to my claim.