LDSNETA

If you're not going to respond to my respose to YOUR post, stop wasting my time.

If Just_A_Guy will state he never read a thread on the subject, and is not obfuscating by withholding information and being belligerent, I will comply.

The true approach (not for prayer as D&C 9 was) was in scripture: But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost. (Mark 13:11) And it came to pass that Nephi and Lehi did preach unto the Lamanites with such great power and authority, for they had power and authority given unto them that they might speak, and they also had what they should speak given unto them (Helaman 5:18) And it shall be given thee in the very moment what thou shalt speak AND WRITE (D&C 24:6) The science of it is clear. Royal Skousen: Joseph Smith is not the author of the Book of Mormon, nor is he actually the translator. Instead, he was the revelator: through him the Lord revealed the English-language text (by means of the interpreters, later called the Urim and Thummim, and the seer stone). Such a view is consistent, I believe, with Joseph’s use elsewhere of the verb translate to mean ‘transmit’ and the noun translation to mean ‘transmission’ (as in the eighth Article of Faith). (link)

Give the definition back then or move on.

"By fluid" you mean, he paused, thought, pondered, and experimented in his mind upon which word to use before choosing one?

You don't have to gang up. The truth won't hurt. And no, I won't play their games of obfuscation.

Seriously? They never read a thread on this topic, in any forum, anywhere? That's why I said they are obfuscating. I will provide links if they each state they have never read a thread on any forum.

Tell HiJolly and Just_A_Guy to answer the questions I gave then. I don't appreciate everyone ganging up btw.

Don't play games.

Socrates was the source, or was it Plato?

Your attempt to obfuscate. What claim? That Skousen backs up Whitmer?

I believe truth is self-evident, is using deductive logic a crime?

For amusement's sake, how, pray tell, do/did you envision it taking place? LOL The "per se" part...a safety clause? What about the public? Acknowledged, there was a class that was familiar with magic; to imply they were the norm however, and Joseph wasn't out to please other classes is problematic. ?

Define "disorderly conduct," "back then." Are you obfuscating for a reason? Say the trial fact you are not happy with.

I assume you already are aware of the facts, shall we discuss the ones you don't like?

How the terms were defined at the time. There are threads already drawing upon these facts.

First, there was a law, and second, the cause for using Biblical terms. Good points Jolly. As for the "bulkiness" - refers to the the "bows" they were set in, not the glass, which could be removed and placed within one's hand or pocket.

Were there laws in place against glass looking?

Yes, but they do not connect the dots of avoiding being tried again by being selective in their word choices regarding the dictation process.

He said Joseph did not use his own words. He spoke what he saw like David, Emma and others said. Sorry, but David was right. Have you read any of his writings?

Interesting is putting it lightly. Thank you for that link. What Wagoner and others omit is the reluctance of the Smith's and others to admit his use of a seer stone/looking glass having previously been charged for using such. Case closed.

What if David was right, and church authorities were wrong? Have you read the conclusions of Royal Skousen?