TBM's & average member, should you really be posting here?

[_Runtu]

No. Don't think such incongruity would work. You see, they have to find it on their own and then run to us to see if it is true, which of course it never is, and then they want to hear more.

Either that, or they realize that some of it is actually true, which of course it is (but you knew that).

[_Quasimodo]

[

No. Don't think such incongruity would work. You see, they have to find it on their own and then run to us to see if it is true, which of course it never is, and then they want to hear more.

But, bc, it always is true. I'm amazed that you could still deny the obvious as you do. I'm guessing that in your deepest thoughts you believe this too. Set yourself free and join the apostates. In your heart of hearts you must know that you're defending the indefensible.

[_bcspace]

No. Don't think such incongruity would work. You see, they have to find it on their own and then run to us to see if it is true, which of course it never is, and then they want to hear more.

Either that, or they realize that some of it is actually true, which of course it is (but you knew that).

Presented in a false light yes.

But, bc, it always is true. I'm amazed that you could still deny the obvious as you do. I'm guessing that in your deepest thoughts you believe this too. Set yourself free and join the apostates. In your heart of hearts you must know that you're defending the indefensible.

[_Quasimodo]

[

But, bc, it always is true. I'm amazed that you could still deny the obvious as you do. I'm guessing that in your deepest thoughts you believe this too. Set yourself free and join the apostates. In your heart of hearts you must know that you're defending the indefensible.

[_Runtu]

Presented in a false light yes.

So, as far as you're concerned, there is nothing at all troubling about church history and origins except that which is presented in a false light? Oh, how I wish that were true.

[_bcspace]

So, as far as you're concerned, there is nothing at all troubling about church history and origins except that which is presented in a false light? Oh, how I wish that were true.

I've never seen a "critic" present it in anything but a false light.

[_Runtu]

I've never seen a "critic" present it in anything but a false light.

By default, then, you consider our views and opinions fundamentally dishonest. I kind of expected that, thought it isn't true.

[_bcspace]

By default, then, you consider our views and opinions fundamentally dishonest. I kind of expected that, thought it isn't true.

I do. I've been down too many rabbit holes. Sometimes I want to think that some are merely deceived but their continual and willful resorting to dishonest sources, conclusions, cherry-picking, presentism, negativity, and yellow journalism even after correction keeps me on the straight and narrow.

[_Runtu]

I do. I've been down too many rabbit holes. Sometimes I want to think that some are merely deceived but their continual and willful resorting to dishonest sources, conclusions, cherry-picking, presentism, negativity, and yellow journalism even after correction keeps me on the straight and narrow.

I might believe you if I hadn't seen you clam up the second solid evidence came up about whether Joseph Smith had concealed at least some of his marriages from Emma. The sources are solid and corroborated, no rabbit hole nor cherry-picking whatsoever. You went quiet and always do when this comes up.

So, whatever you think of me (well, I already know), you and I both know that not everything is a product of yellow journalism, and quite a bit hasn't been corrected.

I've said in the past that I think you're dishonest, and I retract that. I have no reason to believe that you don't honestly believe what you say, but I will say that it's clear to me that you recognize that you don't have good answers for everything. Insisting that you do (and by correlation that we're being dishonest) is just plain wrong, as you well know.

[_bcspace]

I might believe you if I hadn't seen you clam up the second solid evidence came up about whether Joseph Smith had concealed at least some of his marriages from Emma. The sources are solid and corroborated, no rabbit hole nor cherry-picking whatsoever. You went quiet and always do when this comes up.

If I did what does that prove? Was I arguing that that Joseph Smith didn't conceal those marriages? Or was I arguing that such has no catastrophic effect?