Another "Prophet" caught fibbing...

[_grindael]

We all know about you TROLLBIN, You're just jealous because you can't win any arguments with me either...

Actually, I don't give retarded lunatics like you much thought. Keep arguing with faqs though. You are at the same level and this thread is amusing in that at least.

You don't give anything much thought. That's obvious from the drivel you come up with. You know what's amusing? Seeing Morons in Panda Suits catching themselves on fire. Reminds me of another TROLL I know who hides behind a Panda avatar...

[_ldsfaqs]

by the way folks....

I would like to point out that while I did make a minor mistake in the "John Taylors" (not knowing their initials), I entirely admitted that mistake when it was pointed out.
Otherwise, I cannot be blaimed for grindael providing a "false source" of his claim in the original OP, because it claimed Woodruff said the statement in question, and I cannot be blamed for grindael failing to provide the proper source until after much childish games.

But, I made an honest mistake, and fully admit it, and the rest could have been avoided if he had both properly sourced his claim, and actually providing the required source when asked, instead of playing fighting games for several posts first before finally doing so.
Now, if anti's could do the same, able to admit their mistakes, but they never do.

So, anyone that's watched me should have noticed that I sometimes error, and I've fully admitted it when I have.
But, you all will keep doing what you do, and keep saying things falsely of subjects and me.

Oh and grindael..... you're such a non-entity, that I didn't even know of your website until you posted the link once a while back.
So, LDS scholars not responding to your anti-mormon works doesn't mean a thing. They respond to plenty of your "friends" and most of the same exact arguments. You are not special.

[Guest]

by the way folks....

I would like to point out that while I did make a minor mistake in the "John Taylors" (not knowing their initials), I entirely admitted that mistake when it was pointed out.
Otherwise, I cannot be blaimed for grindael providing a "false source" of his claim in the original OP, because it claimed Woodruff said the statement in question, and I cannot be blamed for grindael failing to provide the proper source until after much childish games.

So... This is how a dimwit admits a mistake. It's not my fault, it's someone else's. Hi-lar-i-ous. He is so deluded that he is claiming that I provided a "false source". I didn't. The entire quote from Grant's Diary in the Bergera piece is 100% accurate. It is only Bergera's conclusion that Woodruff was the one who was undecided that I disagree with. So that whole rant is pointless. So I did provide a proper source... twice. And as for "their initials". John Taylor (the President) doesn't have one. But Mr. Know it all didn't know this.

But, I made an honest mistake, and fully admit it, and the rest could have been avoided if he had both properly sourced his claim, and actually providing the required source when asked, instead of playing fighting games for several posts first before finally doing so. Now, if anti's could do the same, able to admit their mistakes, but they never do.

Again this is drivel. I did properly source my claim. The source that Bergera uses is cited properly. So again, this dimwit conclusion is redundant and stupid. And perhaps if ldswrongs hadn't right off the bat called me a liar and claimed that I didn't have the diary, I would have produced it sooner. But then, that would have spoiled all the fun.

So, anyone that's watched me should have noticed that I sometimes error, and I've fully admitted it when I have. But, you all will keep doing what you do, and keep saying things falsely of subjects and me.

No, you always err, you are just too dimwitted to know it, or take the corrections that get handed to you every time you post here. Go ahead, CRY "FOWL".

Oh and grindael..... you're such a non-entity, that I didn't even know of your website until you posted the link once a while back.
So, LDS scholars not responding to your anti-mormon works doesn't mean a thing. They respond to plenty of your "friends" and most of the same exact arguments. You are not special.

Basing the popularity of something on your knowledge of it? That's also hilarious. See folks, I told you he wouldn't rebut anything on my website. All talk, with nothing to back it up as usual. He claims it is full of errors and lies, but can't debunk even one article. (Because he can't). And I'm not looking to "be somebody". I'm not like you. I just put out the truth and let people come and read it. You're the one who brought up the fact that you don't have a website, and then denounced mine, not me. Well, I think you're special, wrongs. You're a special little TBM. Keep up the good work of representing Mormonism. It gets better results than any "anti-Mormon" ever could.

[_cwald]

I appreciate the LDSfaqs admitted he made a mistake. Now if the church leaders would only do the same...

[_grindael]

I appreciate the LDSfaqs admitted he made a mistake. Now if the church leaders would only do the same...

They have. They claim it is all "folklore", or "opinion", or the "cultural norm". It's the old familiar blame it on someone/anything else.

[_ldsfaqs]

Actually, I did address one of your false claims back when I first saw your website grindael.....

As to the rest. Am I somehow obligated to prove my general feelings and views of every idiot trying to destroy the church with words on the web that I happen to read some of?
Nope.

Sorry, you're not that important to me to spend my time on more than what I have.
There are a MILLION of you out there, and I respond as I'm able to your claims.

by the way, still waiting for the alternative possible explainations other than "lying" if you were an objective and fair scholar.
But you won't.

[_ldsfaqs]

I appreciate the LDSfaqs admitted he made a mistake. Now if the church leaders would only do the same...

Appreciate it.....
But, what do you want them to admit?
They've admited some statements of Orson Pratt in his "The Seer" were false, not doctrine.
They've admited McKonkies statement about the Catholic Church similar to Pratt was not doctrine, thus it was removed from his Second Edition of his book.
They've admitted that some of the "theorys" for the Priesthood ban were false and/or racist.

What else do you need them to admit?
Almost anything else is anti-mormons lying about the issue, not an actual mistake or otherwise, save the rare human error that we will readily admit. What else do you need?

The only things doctrine related that have changed in the Church are Polygamy and the Priesthood.
Both have Biblical precidents of being given and taken away according to the Will of the Lord.
Only Levites had the Priesthood, all other Lineages were BANNED.
Polygamy was only authorized in certain instances/times, etc.

What else do you need?

[_cwald]

Well, let's start with some easy ones. ..

MMM.

Lying about William Law.

Destroying the Expositor newspress.

Treatment and 100 years of lies about Thomas Marsh.

Miracle of Forgiveness.

Little Factories.

Oral sex temple recommend questions from 1980....guilt that persist today.

temple penalties and then deleting then without telling anyone.

Garments in general.

Pharasacial commandments in general like WOW. Looking beyond the mark.

Splitting up families...temple doctrines that destroy the family.

White shirts.

The entire 60s Wilkenso BYU culture that persist today and has become doctrine...white shirts and no beards etc



I could go on and on. ...

Oh, and let's not forget Benson 14 Fs of The Prophet....that would be a nice admission of error. ...

[_ldsfaqs]

Well, they DID appologize for MMM..... so get with the program.... shows how much you actually know.
They didn't lie about William Law, he lied.
The City Council including some non-mormons on it destroyed the Press.
Well, technically they were simply supposed to stop it, not destroy it.
Further, I seem to recall they did end up paying for it, but can't remember, they certainly paid for it in other ways, don't you think?
And tell me why the Church needs to appologize for something 150 years ago? Get over it already. You're like FAnatical Islam.
Don't have time to get into all the rest of your rambling.....

But most of the rest of your complaints is just you complaining that poor you has to actually be told how to be a good and quality person according to the Church standards. Get over it. If you don't want to be Mormon, then don't. The rest of us like it as it is. Not always perfect, but it's as good as the world can produce with human beings still in it. Sorry you don't like it.

[_moksha]

Well, they DID appologize for MMM.....

On September 11, 2007, at the memorial ceremony for the sesquicentennial anniversary of the massacre, Henry B. Eyring, an Apostle who would join the First Presidency of the LDS Church the following month, read an official statement, saying:

"We express profound regret for the massacre carried out in this valley 150 years ago today, and for the undue and untold suffering experienced by the victims then and by their relatives to the present time. A separate expression of regret is owed the Paiute people who have unjustly borne for too long the principal blame for what occurred during the massacre. Although the extent of their involvement is disputed, it is believed they would not have participated without the direction and stimulus provided by local church leaders and members."

This was a mea culpa plea, not a genuine apology. It was something drafted by lawyers in the hopes that it would deflect legal liability.

by the way, this statement shouts the need for an apology to the Paiute Tribe for the insinuation that the Paiutes went ahead and participated in the massacre. The culprits who shot bullets straight into the head of the enslaved men, women and children of the wagon train were Mormons. Sometimes it behooves us to be forthright and honest. This is one of those times.