Simon Belmont wrote:
thews,
I've answered your question several times. Just because it isn't the exact answer you want to hear doesn't mean I haven't answered it.
You have not answered any question, nor have you acknowledged what you said. Just for you again Simon, you said...
Simon Belmont wrote:
No one that I know of claims that Joseph successfully translated any portion of the Kinderhook plates. I am perfectly fine with accepting that he attempted, in good faith, thinking his gift applied to all encounters with supposed artifacts.
You can continue your charade (Simon says) and just keep asking me the same question refusing to acknowledge your words, but it only makes you look like more of a fool than you already do. If you don't choose to be civil, then tuck tail again, but stop asking me the same question which I've already answered while you have not. If you claim you are not a sociopath and are capable of intellectually honest dialog, then acknowledge (define) what you said.
The question you have not answered: Who
said the words William Clayton wrote down regarding the descendant of Ham? (insert answer to the question asked).
You said, "I am perfectly fine with accepting that he attempted, in good faith, thinking his gift applied to all encounters with supposed artifacts." Please acknowledge your own words claiming the aforementioned opinion of yours was acknowledging Joseph Smith did attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates, and tried (in good faith), thinking his "gift" applied to supposed artifacts. Why, when one acknowledges what you said, do you have such a problem answering a simple question. Who
said the words Simon?