Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 Gentlemen, why do you continue to debate someone who practices such rank dishonesty in his posts? You know it won't matter what you say, he will simply and dishonestly ignore it. It is fairly straightforward what the poster is doing. He doesn't care what you say, he doesn't care what proof you have. He will simply look for a way to deny reality and continue making things up.I don't know, but I am done.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 The quotes I gave came from Cal wanting to take the conversation a level higher. So please attempt to keep this in context. Instead of making the issue me, deal with the subject at hand...the quotes by LDS leaders and the false persona of Smith.Take CareMarkMarkk you could not have posted something better than what you did that makes Hamba's point. Bravo......Bravo.....
Markk Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 That the Church has hidden information about the gun. That is for starters.This has been proven false a number of times. If you continue to support this faulty position, it is either because you are a liar/intellectually dishonest or just plain stupid. Take your pick.When did I ever say the church hid that JS used a gun, i said I wasn't taught this and i said it isn't taught a whole lot, hiding it something all together something you inserted to the conversation, CFR that i said that?Mark
WalkerW Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 When did I ever say the church hid that JS used a gun, i said I wasn't taught this and i said it isn't taught a whole lot, hiding it something all together something you inserted to the conversation, CFR that i said that?MarkOk:it has nothing to do with what was actually taught to us both directly in class and indirectly in our everyday life in the church. If you are failing to provide information intentionally in order to create a false image, then it is indeed "hiding information." Or it at least demonstrates that one has something to hide.very little is written about the true complete story of the murderIf the Church isn't teaching the "true, complete story," then it is providing a false, incomplete one. That means they are holding back or hiding information that makes the story true & complete. half truths painting a picture that is not the whole truthThis means they must be hiding or holding back info that would make it a whole truth.the false image the church has painted for their membersIf they are creating a false image, they are not providing the info that makes it a true one. They are holding back or hiding info.I could go on.If you took "hiding" as "burning all books and references containing information about the gun," then you are correct: you didn't say that.However, if by hiding I meant (as I did) "holding back," "covering up," "obscuring," "withholding," "ducking out," or any number of synonyms that convey this meaning, then, yes: you most certainly did.Dishonest or stupid?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 I could go on.If you took "hiding" as "burning all books and references containing information about the gun," then you are correct: you didn't say that.However, if by hiding I meant (as I did) "holding back," "covering up," "obscuring," "withholding," "ducking out," or any number of synonyms that convey this meaning, then, yes: you most certainly did.Dishonest or stupid?Oh snap!!
Calm Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 How does this prove he is beyond reproach? I'll tell you what make a list of twenty faults and/or mistakes that JS mad or did and lets discuss them...did you look at the JS videio series, is that a realistic view of the man? MakIf you refuse to accept these examples showing Joseph Smith is condemned for fearing man more than God and for being angry with his wife (and right from the beginning in the very first lessons that children are taught about church history in Church), then I doubt any other examples of his faults or mistakes will pass your requirements.
Daniel Peterson Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 If you refuse to accept these examples showing Joseph Smith is condemned for fearing man more than God and for being angry with his wife (and right from the beginning in the very first lessons that children are taught about church history in Church), then I doubt any other examples of his faults or mistakes will pass your requirements.In my (too) considerable experience with Markk, nothing ever counts or passes his requirements. It just goes on and on and on and on.Next time I attempt conversation with him, provided I'm foolish enough to do so, will somebody out there please report me to the moderators and demand that my posting privileges be suspended for a while? I would be most grateful.
Hestia Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 It just goes on and on and on and on.As has this thread as it has veered away from the OP and the same arguments get repeated. Time to close.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.