12 ms·
> magic plates I'm not aware of any mystical properties ascribed to the plates. They're just ordinary plates of gold. > from a magic bag I'm not aware of any
by cornstalks 6y ago
> magic plates
I'm not aware of any mystical properties ascribed to the plates. They're just ordinary plates of gold.
> from a magic bag
I'm not aware of any bag, especially one with mystical properties. Joseph says the plates were retrieved from an ordinary stone box buried in an ordinary hill, not a "magic" bag.
You're welcome to be critical, but this is just disingenuous.
- pmdulaney 6y agoI am an Evangelical Christian. If a non-Christian were to say to me something about "The Immaculate Conception", I think it would be a tad disingenuous to just say, "We don't believe in any Immaculate Conception!" It would be more forthcoming to say, "Well, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is a Roman Catholic doctrine that asserts that Mary was born without sin; we Evangelicals don't believe that. We do, however, believe that Jesus Christ was born without sin." Likewise, I think you would be more forthcoming in admitting that while LDS does not believe there are any "mystical properties" ascribed to the plates, there were indeed "mystical properties" ascribed to the glasses, the Urim and Thummim, used by Joseph Smith to translate them.
- cornstalks 6y agoThe parent comment mentioned "magic plates", "magic bag", and "magic rock". I specifically called out the "magic plates" and "magic bag" as disingenuous and intentionally didn't rebut "magic rock" because I didn't think that one was necessarily disingenuous. But now that other people have flagged the comment it's not obvious what I selectively replied to.
- pmdulaney 6y agoFair enough. I was not able to read the original comment.