LDS

[Empress]

Originally Posted by showmevegas

Where would one ask to see a seer stone?

Hogwarts?

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Pup

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]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

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]

Originally Posted by showmevegas

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]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

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]

Originally Posted by RandFan

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.

Quote:

: 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]

Originally Posted by RandFan

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]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by jsfisher

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]

Originally Posted by StankApe

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]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

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]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

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]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Pup

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

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.

When it comes to my opinion I am my own source. Janadele is making an empirical claim about what is Mormon doctrine and not simply stating an opinion.

• Empirical claims need sources.
• Opinions do not need sources.

Are we clear?

• Janadele made an emperial claim.
• The posts you are talking about where I expressed an opinion I was expressing an opinion.

Do you see the difference yet? Empirical vs Opinion?

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by RandFan

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?

Just to avoid a technical quibble, I believe before Brigham Young's reign of racism the Church admitted at least a few blacks (and Negros) into the priesthood. So, it is only from then until 1978 that should be under consideration.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

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.

It's called honesty. Look into it. The claim was reasonable but I'm happy to admit that I do not know.

How much do you want to milk this out?

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

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.) [...].

You do it too. Remember your remarks about science as a god?


Nice try, though.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by jsfisher

Just to avoid a technical quibble, I believe before Brigham Young's reign of racism the Church admitted at least a few blacks (and Negros) into the priesthood. So, it is only from then until 1978 that should be under consideration.

Good catch. You are correct.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by RandFan

It's called honesty. Look into it. The claim was reasonable but I'm happy to admit that I do not know.

How much do you want to milk this out?

I have yet to see skyrider44 admit that faith plays no part in the practice of the scientific method.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Good catch. You are correct.

This article is interesting.

And it's important to remember that even many abolitionists did not regard Africans as being intellectually or morally equal to Europeans. Many were outraged by the cruelty of slavery, but still balked at the notion of a "black" man marrying a "white" woman.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by skyrider44

Then perhaps he should have chosen his response more carefully.

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

It was not my intent to mislead. When confronted with it I corrected it. Now about those artifacts? BTW: Don't forget to call Janadele out for her dishonesty in claiming that blacks could always hold the priesthood, it was only Negros that couldn't. She has been given many opportunities to correct the record but she refuses.

[StankApe]

I know a few black folks who would be very interested to hear what the difference is between a black person and a negro.

Is negro a subset of being black?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

I have yet to see skyrider44 admit that faith plays no part in the practice of the scientific method.

What's odd is that this is a bizarre ad hominem. As if attacking me will make Mormonism true.

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by StankApe

I know a few black folks who would be very interested to hear what the difference is between a black person and a negro.

Is negro a subset of being black?

Janadele won't tell us.

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by RandFan

What's odd is that this is a bizarre ad hominem. As if attacking me will make Mormonism true.

Isn't this always the way with the logic challenged?

[Pup]

Well, I'm completely puzzled. Skyrider44 seems to be stalling at providing any evidence of existing artifacts, yet all he would need to do is point out that Jomante already provided a nice link in post #2959.

Jomante's link:

http://mormonthink.com/transbomweb.htm

The link below goes more directly to the relevant part:
http://mormonthink.com/transbomweb.htm#whereisthe

it has all kinds of good information, including:

Quote:

This seer stone is now kept in the First Presidency's private vault (SOURCES: Roberts 1930, 6:231n; J. F. Smith 1954a, 3:225; McConkie 1966, 818; Joseph Anderson 1971).

I googled a bit more on the illustration of the stone at the top of the page, and it seems to be another seer stone that passed down through Philo Dibble (what a name that poor fellow had to live with). There's more about it, and another stone here:

http://seerstone.blogspot.com/2006/0...er-stones.html

I can't vouch for the accuracy of any of that information; haven't done more than just googled around for links. But it certainly gives a lot of provenances, names, sources, etc. to dig into and look through (pun intended ), if one wants.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by John Jones

Isn't this always the way with the logic challenged?

The subject at hand was whether or not heavenly mother was Mormon doctrine. So the ad hominem would normally be to attack my position on that proposition, the proposition at hand. But he has not staked out a position on that.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Pup

Well, I'm completely puzzled. Skyrider44 seems to be stalling at providing any evidence of existing artifacts, yet all he would need to do is point out that Jomante already provided a nice link in post #2959.

Jomante's link:

http://mormonthink.com/transbomweb.htm

The link below goes more directly to the relevant part:
http://mormonthink.com/transbomweb.htm#whereisthe

it has all kinds of good information, including:


I googled a bit more on the illustration of the stone at the top of the page, and it seems to be another seer stone that passed down through Philo Dibble (what a name that poor fellow had to live with). There's more about it, and another stone here:

http://seerstone.blogspot.com/2006/0...er-stones.html

I can't vouch for the accuracy of any of that information; haven't done more than just googled around for links. But it certainly gives a lot of provenances, names, sources, etc. to dig into and look through (pun intended ), if one wants.

But the seer stone predates the first vision. The Urim and Thummim were taken by the angel with the plates, IIRC. There was nothing particularly special about that stone. It wasn't handed down from god and, AFAIK, it has never been shown to have any magical properties.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by StankApe

I know a few black folks who would be very interested to hear what the difference is between a black person and a negro.

Is negro a subset of being black?

All we know so far is that negroes are from Africa, but not all Africans are negroes. Also, negroes apparently know that they are negroes.

[StankApe]

So, if the world was Django Unchained, would Django just be of African descent, but Stephen was a negro? or do I have this backwards?

are the mandingo fighters negros?


this is very confusing

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

All we know so far is that negroes are from Africa, but not all Africans are negroes. Also, negroes apparently know that they are negroes.

Also, Mormon leaders have the magical power to figure out who has even a drop of black blood.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by RandFan

But the seer stone predates the first vision. The Urim and Thummim were taken by the angel with the plates, IIRC. There was nothing particularly special about that stone. It wasn't handed down from god and, AFAIK, it has never been shown to have any magical properties.

Not sure it's that clear-cut (well, except for the last sentence; I think that's true of just about anything ).

From a FAIR wiki post a couple of clicks off of Jomante's link:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smit...on_translation

The article title kinda sums it up: "Why did Joseph use the same stone for translating the Book of Mormon that he used for 'money digging'?"

Edited to add: I haven't read all the stuff in enough detail to figure out if any of the seer stones that survive are supposed to have been the same ones used at the time Smith was translating the Book of Mormon, but it does address the "vault" discussion from a few posts back and I suspect it's the kind of stuff that Skyrider was coyly hinting at.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Pup

Not sure it's that clear-cut (well, except for the last sentence; I think that's true of just about anything ).

From a FAIR wiki post a couple of clicks off of Jomante's link:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smit...on_translation

The article title kinda sums it up: "Why did Joseph use the same stone for translating the Book of Mormon that he used for 'money digging'?"

Edited to add: I haven't read all the stuff in enough detail to figure out if any of the seer stones that survive are supposed to have been the same ones used at the time Smith was translating the Book of Mormon, but it does address the "vault" discussion from a few posts back and I suspect it's the kind of stuff that Skyrider was coyly hinting at.

Thanks.