Blainerb: Sorry Kevin, as usual, you have either been reading the
wrong stuff, or you are making this up as you go along, trying to build a
case. Joseph Smith had the Urim &Thummim
restored to him in July, 1828. Using
it, he received a new revelation reprimanding him for allowing Martin Harris to
have the 116 page manuscript and telling him the designs of God could not be
frustrated. The U&T was again
taken from him, but later restored after a period of
probation. Using it, he then received a revelation telling
him 1) of the evil intentions of those who stole the manuscript, and 2) that he
was not to re-translate the same portion of the plates as before, but was
to translate from a different section of the plates covering the
same time period. (A Comprehensive History of the Church, B.H.
Roberts, Vol 1, pages 111-112)
In a message dated 7/28/2005 11:26:59 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
- Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter' Blainerb473
- Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter' Kevin Deegan
- Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'context... Kevin Deegan
- Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'con... Kevin Deegan
- Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'con... Terry Clifton
- Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a ... Kevin Deegan
- Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter' Kevin Deegan
- Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter' Blainerb473
- Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'context... Kevin Deegan
- Re: [TruthTalk] A 'prooftexter' vs a 'contexter' Charles Perry Locke