Ephraim temple announcement revelation or caving to public pressure

[webbles]

17 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Read my earlier posts.  I've already provided quotes on this point.

I have read your earlier posts.  I've also read lots of articles about the renovations.  I have not seen any claim that the decision to renovate Manti was a revelation.  I also haven't seen any claim that the decision to remove the murals was a revelation.  The only revelations that I've seen, in regards to the temple renovations, is the decision to build the Ephraim temple, the decision to keep the Manti murals, and "the Lord’s hand guiding us in modifying several aspects of the renovation".

Can you please show me where it is claimed that the decision to renovate Manti (or even Salt Lake, St. George, or Logan) was a revelation?  And can you please show me where it is claimed that the decision to remove the murals?

[Fair Dinkum]

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

God for you.  I share those historical architectural concerns, and am glad that the Brethren are humble enough to reverse themselves.  For you, on the other hand, it is more evidence of their incompetence and chicanery.  You are incapable of being charitable and understanding of the limitations of those Brethren.  So you foist false doctrine on the LDS Church in order indicate ignorance and mendacity on their part.  Is that the kind of society you want to be a part of?  A society in which the slightest little thing leads to catcalling?

Oh contraire mon amie, I too am delighted that the brethren have reversed themselves and that these historical treasures will be preserved for posterity rather than destroyed and for the record, I have neither asserted incompetence nor chicanery, I have however asserted that they're claim of revelation has stretched incredulity, an assertion to which you yourself have agreed with.  So we are really not that far apart 👿

Edited May 6, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[webbles]

26 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That's not really the issue here. What puzzles me is why they went out of their way to deny that public outcry had anything to do with the decision, revelation or not. Like I said before, it's not a big deal, but a wholly unnecessary denial. 

The only person, as far as I know, that denied the public outcry is Elder Rasband.  And I haven't yet found the actual interview where Elder Rasband denies it.  So I'm not sure if we can say "they went out of their way".  It is possible that the interview specifically asked him and he responded that way.  Or it could have been that when they asked him what prompted the change, he didn't mention the outcry.

I'd really love to see the actual interview.

[Fair Dinkum]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Good points, these.

I think some folks have a facile and blinkered perspective on how revelation in the Church works.  The Brethren are not mindless automatons, incapable of functioning or making a decision until and unless the Lord puts a thought into their heads.  I think the Lord does guide them a lot, in ways large and small.  But I also think the Lord can and does leave them to function and make decisions according to their informed and reasonably-exercised discretion.

Joseph Smith said: “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.”  I think the Lord does that quite often.

In D&C 58 the Lord states:

We are told three times in the Doctrine & Covenants to "seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom."

Given these circumstances, I think the Lord often allows the decisions made by the Brethren to proceed and/or ratifies them, even if and when decisions resulting in a misstep or an adverse consequence.  I don't think the Lord will ever let the Brethren err to the point of leading the Church astray, but the historical record makes it pretty clear that he allows them to err in plenty of ways short of that.

And yet, we are still commanded to sustain and honor these men.  Not because of their perfection, but despite their manifest imperfections.  Hence with wisdom we see in Mormon 9:31:

And hence the caution we are given by the Lord in 3 Nephi 14:

Thanks,

-Smac

You are forgetting that it is the Brethren and not me that has claimed this reversal in decisions was revelation.

[Fair Dinkum]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

True.  However, for FairDinkum it is a very big deal and indicative of lying leaders, and he will give no quarter to them.  If the Tanners were similarly marketing half-truths, they would not be expected to know the difference. Why is being charitable only applicable to one side of the issue?

You are guilty of misrepresenting my remarks.  At no time have I asserted lying by the brethren.  I certainly would not choose that particular word.  But at least for me, they are attempting, to have their cake and eat it too.  They seem to have a blind spot for being able to admit that public outcries impact their decisions.  Its as if they do not what anyone to believe that they are human and as humans oft times make errors in their decisions.  But they can't bring themselves to admitting that they make these mistakes and so use God as a crutch to hide their mistakes  and blame them on God.  It makes God look foolish.

[Fair Dinkum]

44 minutes ago, webbles said:

I have read your earlier posts.  I've also read lots of articles about the renovations.  I have not seen any claim that the decision to renovate Manti was a revelation.  I also haven't seen any claim that the decision to remove the murals was a revelation.  The only revelations that I've seen, in regards to the temple renovations, is the decision to build the Ephraim temple, the decision to keep the Manti murals, and "the Lord’s hand guiding us in modifying several aspects of the renovation".

Can you please show me where it is claimed that the decision to renovate Manti (or even Salt Lake, St. George, or Logan) was a revelation?  And can you please show me where it is claimed that the decision to remove the murals?

I went back and checked and I must admit that you are correct.  I stand corrected, the quote I provided earlier was in reference to the recent announcement.  I can find nothing that ties the decision to renovate to revelation. Although its fair to assume that nothing could happen with a temple without some claim of revelation, but I'll concede and go with the renovations as a mere administrative decision.  That said, I stand by my earlier remarks that the recent claim of revelation was not influenced by the public outcry for the preservation of the paintings stretch incredulity . 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

You are forgetting that it is the Brethren and not me that has claimed this reversal in decisions was revelation.

I'm not forgetting that at all.  To the contrary, I am incorporating that into my perspective:

Quote

I think the Lord often allows the decisions made by the Brethren to proceed and/or ratifies them, even if and when decisions result in a misstep or an adverse consequence.  I don't think the Lord will ever let the Brethren err to the point of leading the Church astray, but the historical record makes it pretty clear that he allows them to err in plenty of ways short of that.

My worldview can accommodate the idea the the Brethren are guided by revelation, and yet they can and do still make mistakes or errors in judgment.

 In this thread you have repeatedly insinuated or outright declared that the Brethren are lying when they say they are guided by revelation:

• "I was not excited to hear was that the church is calling it revelation.  I wish the church would just be honest and transparent..."
• "God seems all too human in his response to pressure from those who didn't like his initial revelation."
• "{The Brethren's comments about revelation make} God look fickle and uncertain, uncertain...like he did on the children of lgbtq reversal, which I personally feel had nothing to do with God. ... God had nothing to do with it."
• "{Y}ou certainly missed the initial announcement wherein the first presidency claimed revelation for the renovations of the Manti and SLC Temples...and now again revelation for its reversal or modification from the initial announcement. Seems God changed his mind once again."
• "Or the First Presidency heard the cries of protests and plea's from the people of Manti and reconsidered their decision.  My complaint is the need to claim a revelation for something that is an obvious administrative decision."
• "The timeline is undisputed...Claimed revelation for renovation, followed by prayers, protests and plea's followed by another claimed revelation for Ephraim Temple..."
• "But {the General Authorities} throwing God under the bus when they change their minds on an administrative decision makes God out to be a fool."
• "{A}nd then in May 2021 the church reverses itself and claims revelation and Elder Rasband expects us to believe that none of the protests played into the reversal of their decision?  Sorry I'm not buying it."
• "Good for them, it's what they should have done here.   They were honest and transparent in Erda. I was hoping that they would do the same here but instead chose to play the revelation card..."

And yet just a few minutes ago you wrote:

"I have neither asserted incompetence nor chicanery..."

Chicanery: "the use of trickery to achieve a political, financial, or legal purpose."

And this:

"You are guilty of misrepresenting my remarks.  At no time have I asserted lying by the brethren.

You expect us to believe that none of your various accusations against the General Authorities amount to accusations of lying?  To quote a guy: "Sorry I'm not buying it."

Yes, you have accused them of lying.  Several times over.  And the irony of you denying what you have repeatedly said while in the very act of publicly castigating the General Authorities for their purported lying/disonesty is nearly off the charts.

Thanks,

-Smac  

Edited May 6, 2021 by smac97

[webbles]

58 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

That said, I stand by my earlier remarks that the recent claim of revelation was not influenced by the public outcry for the preservation of the paintings stretch incredulity . 

I'm not certain that that claim was actually made.  I just did a search for articles about the Manti and Ephraim temple announcement and read them.  Here's the list of articles that I read:
 

Quote

 

https://www.ldsliving.com/-Ephraim-first-Manti-second-A-lesson-in-continuing-revelation-from-the-recent-temple-announcement/s/94271

https://www.ldstemple.pics/news/ephraim-temple-announced-and-manti-temple-renovation-changes/

https://kslnewsradio.com/1947870/ephraim-residents-react-to-new-temple-announcement/?

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/ephraim-utah-temple-manti-temple-renovation

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/5/1/22411970/temple-mormon-latter-day-saints-manti-utah-ephraim-church-religion-prophet-nelson

https://www.thechurchnews.com/temples/2021-05-01/new-temple-in-ephraim-manti-temple-craftsmanship-212243

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/lds-church-announces-new-temple-in-ephraim-murals-in-manti-temple-to-stay

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/05/01/breaking-treasured-manti/

https://ksltv.com/461152/church-announces-new-temple-in-ephraim/

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/faith/lds-church-announces-new-temple-in-ephraim-altered-renovation-plans-in-manti/article_74f7b111-0e65-5515-8e85-bad00b7a5aab.html

https://religionnews.com/2021/05/01/mormons-petitions-help-to-save-historic-artwork-in-manti-utah-temple/

https://kslnewsradio.com/1947863/church-outlines-manti-temple-renovation-announces-new-temple-for-ephraim-utah/?

https://www.hjnews.com/news/local/treasured-murals-will-stay-in-manti-temple-ephraim-will-get-an-lds-temple-too/article_497d6686-f486-5aa5-86a4-abb85e81a25e.html

https://www.kuer.org/arts-culture-religion/2021-05-03/sanpete-county-residents-celebrate-preservation-of-manti-temple-and-new-temple-announcement

https://www.ldsliving.com/President-Nelson-announces-new-temple-in-Ephraim-Utah-Manti-Temple-to-be-restored/s/94260

 

 

Only one of those articles makes the claim that the protests had no role in the revelation.  That is the SLTrib article.  And its quote is:

Quote

In an interview, Rasband called the move a divine “revelation” and said that protests, petitions and phone calls — even a march in downtown Provo — opposing the art removal played no role in the decision to retain them.

The reversal was prompted, he said, “by the prayers of the people in this part of Utah.”

Does anybody know if it is possible to get the full video/notes/transcript/etc from the interview?

I've found two videos on youtube that have parts of the interview, but none of them include the claim.

 

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes, you have accused them of lying.  Several times over. 

A common accusation of yours and Scott's.  A tactic to demonize your opponent in a particularly malicious way.  (When I merely asked for anybody's evidence that Joseph Smith actually successfully translated Egyptian, Scott asked me if I was accusing Joseph Smith of lying. I was particularly upset and offended by that, as he intended.)

See https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201702/why-gaslighters-accuse-you-gaslighting.  

In your reply legal briefs,  you'd never get away with this kind of argument.

A difference of opinion, or raising questions about things said, does not mean you are accusing somebody of being a liar.  I don't accuse adversaries or friends of being liars for changing their minds about things.

I see the placement of temples in a particular locality as not a big deal requiring special revelation.  It might occur, but it isn't necessary.  I know of several sites located for temples, which were abandoned.  Indeed, the Church's very first "revealed" temple site, the Susquehanna River, was abandoned. (See the discussion of the foundation stones of the Susquehanna River Templ in Wilford C. Wood, Joseph Smith Begins His Work.)

Edited May 6, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Bob Crockett said:

A common accusation of yours and Scott's.  A tactic to demonize your opponent in a particularly malicious way.  

In your reply legal briefs,  you'd never get away with this kind of argument.

A difference of opinion, or raising questions about things said, does not mean you are accusing somebody of being a liar. 

I'm having this same conversation on a different thread. I agree with you that it's an attempt to demonize, and not particularly subtle.

[Fair Dinkum]

22 minutes ago, webbles said:

I'm not certain that that claim was actually made.  I just did a search for articles about the Manti and Ephraim temple announcement and read them.  Here's the list of articles that I read:
 

 

Only one of those articles makes the claim that the protests had no role in the revelation.  That is the SLTrib article.  And its quote is:

Does anybody know if it is possible to get the full video/notes/transcript/etc from the interview?

I've found two videos on youtube that have parts of the interview, but none of them include the claim.

 

Because if its quoted in the SL Trib and isn't flattering of the brethren then it is an obvious made up lie, right? Maybe its the pro- LDS news outlets that are self editing so as not to embarrass the church instead of the SL Trib making up quotes.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I tend to feel that ... miracles should be seen as common.

Then why call them miracles if they happen all the time?

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, CA Steve said:

Then why call them miracles if they happen all the time?

A  miracle is something that can't be explained through natural or scientific law; rareness isn't a part of the definition. 

I agree that the word typically denotes a certain 'unique-ness' to such experiences, but really, there isn't anything in the word (or it's use in spiritual language) that I can think of that says miracles must be rare or they lose meaning.

[CA Steve]

46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

A  miracle is something that can't be explained through natural or scientific law; rareness isn't a part of the definition. 

I agree that the word typically denotes a certain 'unique-ness' to such experiences, but really, there isn't anything in the word (or it's use in spiritual language) that I can think of that says miracles must be rare or they lose meaning.

I think part of the definition of a miracle has to include the lack of expectation that such an event is actually going to happen. The event is "a highly improbable or extraordinary event." If the expectation is that the event is going to happen, what part of the event makes it miraculous? Just because we cannot explain how someone recovered from a serious illness does not mean it was a miracle, we simply do not understand the natural processes that occurred in their recovery.

So when you say "cannot be explained through natural or scientific law, do you mean by our current understanding or ever?

I mean if I can't explain why I just found my car keys, is that a miracle?

 

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by CA Steve

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

A common accusation of yours and Scott's. 

Huh?

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

A tactic to demonize your opponent in a particularly malicious way. 

Nonsense.  I quoted FD.  Chapter and verse.  

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

In your reply legal briefs,  you'd never get away with this kind of argument.

Well, we're not in court.

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

A difference of opinion, or raising questions about things said, does not mean you are accusing somebody of being a liar. 

I think FD's remarks go beyond opinion.  He is publicly accusing the General Authorities of dishonest.  Of lying.

And in any event, I don't know how else to construe this:

"I wish the church would just be honest and transparent..."

And this:

"Good for them, it's what they should have done here.   They were honest and transparent in Erda. I was hoping that they would do the same here but instead chose to play the revelation card..."

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't accuse adversaries or friends of being liars for changing their minds about things.

Nor do I.  Meanwhile, however, Fair Dinkum has repeatedly publicized such ugly accusations against the general authorities of the Church.

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

I see the placement of temples in a particular locality as not a big deal requiring special revelation. It might occur, but it isn't necessary. 

I agree.

And yet Fair Dinkum has accused the brethren of lying about this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Because if its quoted in the SL Trib and isn't flattering of the brethren then it is an obvious made up lie, right? Maybe its the pro- LDS news outlets that are self editing so as not to embarrass the church instead of the SL Trib making up quotes.

Really?  That's not at all what I meant.

I really want to see what was actually said.  SL Trib doesn't quote Elder Rasband so it is very possible that SL Trib is making an assumption about what Elder Rasband said, just like you and I are making assumptions on what he said.  Instead of arguing over what we think he said or what we think SL Trib thinks he said, it would be so much better to actually argue over what he said.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, webbles said:

Really?  That's not at all what I meant.

I really want to see what was actually said.  SL Trib doesn't quote Elder Rasband so it is very possible that SL Trib is making an assumption about what Elder Rasband said, just like you and I are making assumptions on what he said.  Instead of arguing over what we think he said or what we think SL Trib thinks he said, it would be so much better to actually argue over what he said.

Actual original quotes in full context are so much nicer because people so often interpret what is said differently, sometimes based on faulty assumptions, but also when one person uses one set of accurate assumptions but leaves out the accurate assumptions that someone else focuses on. 

[Fair Dinkum]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Huh?

Nonsense.  I quoted FD.  Chapter and verse.  

Well, we're not in court.

I think FD's remarks go beyond opinion.  He is publicly accusing the General Authorities of dishonest.  Of lying.

And in any event, I don't know how else to construe this:

"I wish the church would just be honest and transparent..."

And this:

"Good for them, it's what they should have done here.   They were honest and transparent in Erda. I was hoping that they would do the same here but instead chose to play the revelation card..."

Nor do I.  Meanwhile, however, Fair Dinkum has repeatedly publicized such ugly accusations against the general authorities of the Church.

I agree.

And yet Fair Dinkum has accused the brethren of lying about this.

Thanks,

-Smac

Elder Rasband claimed that the reversal was revelation and NOT influenced by the public demand and outcry for an alternative solution.   I am not calling Elder Rasband a liar, those are your words.  I have specifically stated that I find Elder Rasband's assessment of the event as stretching incredulity and the imagination.  In light of the evidence, I find Elder Rasband's explanation hard to swallow.  But lying is not a word I would use, I would prefer that you not put words in my mouth.  I purposely choose my words very carefully when posting on this board.  I make every effort to be respectful so I would again appreciate it if you would not misrepresent the spirit of my posts nor put words that I have not used in my mouth

Edited May 6, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Because if its quoted in the SL Trib and isn't flattering of the brethren then it is an obvious made up lie, right? Maybe its the pro- LDS news outlets that are self editing so as not to embarrass the church instead of the SL Trib making up quotes.

I find it neither flattering nor disparaging. As noted here Posted 3 hours ago (edited) , the quotes in the SLT simply show which processes and attitudes work for this kind of revelation.

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I think part of the definition of a miracle has to include the lack of expectation that such an event is actually going to happen. The event is "a highly improbable or extraordinary event." If the expectation is that the event is going to happen, what part of the event makes it miraculous? Just because we cannot explain how someone recovered from a serious illness does not mean it was a miracle, we simply do not understand the natural processes that occurred in their recovery.

So when you say "cannot be explained through natural or scientific law, do you mean by our current understanding or ever?

I mean if I can't explain why I just found my car keys, is that a miracle?

 

 

From my perspective, whether or not something is a miracle and whether or not a miracle can be proven to be one, are two different subjects.   I was speaking to the first issue and not the second.

Even if everyone believes something in the scientific or natural world caused a reaction or event, if that's not true, it was still a miracle even if no one knows it was.  The opposite is also true.  Even if everyone believes something is a miracle, if it was actually a natural event or explainable, then it wasn't, even if no one knows it wasn't.

Truth is truth regardless of who knows it or believes it, or who doesn't.  And miracles are not, by definition, subjective, just because they are not easy to prove or disprove.  So when I say that a miracle cannot be attributed to anything explainable, I mean ever.  

In answer to the bolded question I would ask a question in response:  If the apostles had believe that Christ was going to be resurrected on the third day--if they knew it was going to happen--would it be any less of a miracle when (or if, for the agnostics among us) He rose from the grave that Sunday?

The answer is no.  It wouldn't.  Someone coming back to life three days after they died would still be completely outside of the realm of science or the natural world, even if everyone expected it to happen.  Believing that miracles can happen (or that in specific situations they will happen) does not make the event any less miraculous.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Elder Rasband claimed that the reversal was revelation and NOT influenced by the public demand and outcry for an alternative solution.  

Right.  And you have repeatedly and publicly impugned his honesty on that point.

7 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I am not calling Elder Rasband a liar, those are your words. 

Again, I don't know how else to construe this:

"I wish the church would just be honest and transparent..."

And this:

"Good for them, it's what they should have done here.   They were honest and transparent in Erda. I was hoping that they would do the same here but instead chose to play the revelation card..."

If these are not public accusastions of lying, then what are they?

7 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I have specifically stated that I find Elder Rasband's assessment of the event as stretching incredulity and the imagination. 

You also said that you "with the church would just be honest and transparent," the context being that the Church has not been honest and transparent.  Right?  Right?

You also said that the leaders of the Church were "honest and transparent" about the Tooele temple, and that you were "hoping that they would do the same thing {be 'honest and transparent'} here but instead..."  But instead they did . . . what?  They - as you put it - "play{ed} the revelation card."  They, as you put it, were not "honest and transparent."

So if that's not a public accusation of lying, then what is it?

7 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

In light of the evidence, I find Elder Rasband's explanation hard to swallow.  But lying is not a word I would use, I would prefer that you not put words in my mouth.  I purposely choose my words very carefully when posting on this board.

And yet you still managed to publicly accuse Elder Rasband of not being "honest and transparent."  A couple of times, actually.

7 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I make every effort to be respectful so I would again appreciate it if you would not misrepresent the spirit of my posts nor put words that I have not used in my mouth

You have repeatedly and publicly accused Elder Rasband of not being "honest and transparent."  Right?

You have publicly accused Elder Rasband of dishonesty by "playing the revelation card."  Right?

You have repeatedly and publicly juxtaposed honesty and transparency with Elder Rasband's remarks, with the the latter falling outside the ambit of the former.  Right?

I am reminded of a scene from  A Man for All Seasons, where Will Roper asked Sir Thomas More for permission to marry More’s daughter:

Quote

More: Roper, the answer is no and will be no as long as you’re a heretic.

Roper: Now that’s a word I don’t like, sir Thomas.

More: It’s not a likable word; it’s not a likable thing.

Dishonesty is not a likeable word, either.  Nor is lying a likable thing.

And yet here you are, having repeatedly and publicly accused Elder Rasband of that.

I get that you dislike your accusations against him being characterized as accusations of lying.  But that's how they come across.  Bigly.  Plainly.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[CA Steve]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective, whether or not something is a miracle and whether or not a miracle can be proven to be one, are two different subjects.   I was speaking to the first issue and not the second.

Even if everyone believes something in the scientific or natural world caused a reaction or event, if that's not true, it was still a miracle even if no one knows it was.  The opposite is also true.  Even if everyone believes something is a miracle, if it was actually a natural event or explainable, then it wasn't, even if no one knows it wasn't.

Truth is truth regardless of who knows it or believes it, or who doesn't.  And miracles are not, by definition, subjective, just because they are not easy to prove or disprove.  So when I say that a miracle cannot be attributed to anything explainable, I mean ever.  

In answer to the bolded question I would ask a question in response:  If the apostles had believe that Christ was going to be resurrected on the third day--if they knew it was going to happen--would it be any less of a miracle when (or if, for the agnostics among us) He rose from the grave that Sunday?

The answer is no.  It wouldn't.  Someone coming back to life three days after they died would still be completely outside of the realm of science or the natural world, even if everyone expected it to happen.  Believing that miracles can happen (or that in specific situations they will happen) does not make the event any less miraculous.

This made my head hurt.

[Bob Crockett]

36 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Elder Rasband claimed that the reversal was revelation and NOT influenced by the public demand and outcry for an alternative solution.   I am not calling Elder Rasband a liar, those are your words.  I have specifically stated that I find Elder Rasband's assessment of the event as stretching incredulity and the imagination.  In light of the evidence, I find Elder Rasband's explanation hard to swallow.  But lying is not a word I would use, I would prefer that you not put words in my mouth.  I purposely choose my words very carefully when posting on this board.  I make every effort to be respectful so I would again appreciate it if you would not misrepresent the spirit of my posts nor put words that I have not used in my mouth

It won't happen.  One of the refuges of a montebank is to ask if you are calling our sainted leaders liars.  

[Bob Crockett]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

And yet here you are, having repeatedly and publicly accused Elder Rasband of that.

I get that you dislike your accusations against him being characterized as accusations of lying.  But that's how they come across.  Bigly.  Plainly.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

What kind of analysis is this?  Instead of responding to the merits, you get into a fistfight of words over who's calling whom a liar?

[pogi]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Then why call them miracles if they happen all the time?

God speaking to me personally is a miracle.  It happens a lot.