Another "Prophet" caught fibbing...

[_The Erotic Apologist]

The man who killed my two brothers (driving under the influence of drugs) has never asked forgiveness of me or anyone in my family, for that matter--at least not that I know of. So, if you're correct, I shouldn't have to forgive him because he never asked. But I forgave him because not forgiving was a heavy burden I would have continued to carry.

Damn, how awful. I had no idea you had to go through something as terrible as that. Neither of us knows the other particularly well, but if there's something I can do to help, let me know via PM.

[_ldsfaqs]

Hey all......

So, here we have another classic example of the anti-mormon grindael LYING..... as well all the other anti-mormon sheeple simply believe his work without looking at it for themselves, and all the while claiming it's the Mormon (a.k.a. Apostle) who is lying.
grindael abuses sources and creates a lie, when it is actually HE who is lying.

grindael try's to make his case by refering to a statement Grant made in his Journal at least a "month" after John Taylor's death.
However, the problem with that is that if a person actually reads the SOURCE he links
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewc ... monhistory
...one see's that the Journal entry is a "retelling in first person" of one of the Meetings of the Quorum of the 12 WITH the Apostle John Taylor.

Clearly, John Taylor wasn't dead yet.
Thus, Grant's "I am very much undecided" statement according to the above link was a statement he made closing the meeting in question.

There is no indication that I saw that indicated the DATE of the meeting in which Grant makes that statement, but clearly it was well before Taylor was dead, and Grant was simply recording in his journal the meeting that occured, doing so at a later date, which happened to be after Taylors death. It's likely he did this after the fact because of time constraints. The Prophet was dead, so he wanted to record some key events in his journal.

Thus, Grants "story" 30 years later could have easily occured. Grant could have met with Taylor prior to his death and thus his story in fact happened.

I would be thankful indeed in my heart if the word of God to our
quorum would come through Prest W. Woodruff on the Albert Carrington
case. It is painful to me to feel that I am lacking in mercy to a
fallen brother and it is equally painful to vote to let a man return to the
church that has been guilty of such fearful crimes as Albert Carrington.
To vote directly against the best judgment a man has is a serious thing,
and to turn away one crying for baptism is also a serious thing.

Presumably exhausted, Woodruff closed the meeting by admitting
frankly: “I am very much undecided.”68

In conclusion..... I yet again demonstrate how the anti-mormon only see's what they want to see that supports their bigotry and hate, rather than the actual truth and facts.

Grant's Journal entry was a First Person retelling of a Meeting he had with the Quorum of the Twelve including the Prophet John Taylor.
Thus, Grant years later retelling a story of how he repented with the help and words of John Taylor, is not some sort of lie, but simply another event that occured when Taylor was still alive.
Grants Journal entry was not a "remembering" retelling, but a first person one as if he was there at the time.
Thus his usage of present tense words, is not surprising, especially when he does the same through his entire retelling of the meeting.

Thus, concluding those were his "current views" well after John Taylors death is nothing but a misrepresentative LIE.

I would also like to point out, that if grindael actually used primary sources, i.e. Grants actual journal, he would likely find another entry of Grant's concerning the meeting he had with John Taylor that Grant retold 30 years later. After all, Taylors words were pretty specific.
Apostles often go through their journals to teach lessons on things at a future date. In fact, it's their primary teaching tool.

This also shows how BAD of an "intellectual/scholar" grindael in fact is......
He makes no effort to find all aspects and facts related to a subject, but instead cherry picks some things, and then runs with them, no matter the actual truth and facts about this thing. This is also anti-mormonism itself.

Thus, the only "Prophet" "caught fibbing" is grindael.....

[_grindael]

I don't know what planet you think you are one LDS(anything but facts), but it isn't the same one everyone else is on. The entry I used IS FROM GRANT'S DIARY. I have a copy of it. The Date of that meeting was August 12, 1877 and John Taylor DIED on July 25, 1877. The conclusion you make, taken from Gary James Bergera, is mistaken. It wasn't Woodruff who claimed he was undecided, it was GRANT. So going on a rant and calling me a liar only shows how pathetic and stupid you are, and how ignorant your comprehension skills are.

Grant's Journal entry was a First Person retelling of a Meeting he had with the Quorum of the Twelve including the Prophet John Taylor.

NOPE. It was Grant's notes that he took from a meeting he had with the Quorum of the Twelve and President of the Quorum, Wilford Woodruff, because JOHN TAYLOR WAS ALREADY DEAD. The meeting was on August 12, 1877 and TAYLOR DIED ON JULY 25. This is plain as day in my post above but obviously you are too stupid to comprehend it. There is no entry in Grant's Diary of a meeting he had with John Taylor concerning Carrington, because it NEVER HAPPENED.

I can't believe people can be as stupid as you are, but there it is, they can be and you are.

[_ldsfaqs]

I don't know what planet you think you are one LDS(anything but facts), but it isn't the same one everyone else is on. The entry I used IS FROM GRANT'S DIARY. I have a copy of it. The Date of that meeting was August 12, 1877 and John Taylor DIED on July 25, 1877. The conclusion you make, taken from Gary James Bergera, is mistaken. It wasn't Woodruff who claimed he was undecided, it was GRANT. So going on a rant and calling me a liar only shows how pathetic and stupid you are, and how ignorant your comprehension skills are.

Grant's Journal entry was a First Person retelling of a Meeting he had with the Quorum of the Twelve including the Prophet John Taylor.

NOPE. It was Grant's notes that he took from a meeting he had with the Quorum of the Twelve and President of the Quorum, Wilford Woodruff, because JOHN TAYLOR WAS ALREADY DEAD. The meeting was on August 12, 1877 and TAYLOR DIED ON JULY 25. This is plain as day in my post above but obviously you are too stupid to comprehend it. There is no entry in Grant's Diary of a meeting he had with John Taylor concerning Carrington, because it NEVER HAPPENED.

I can't believe people can be as stupid as you are, but there it is, they can be and you are.

1. If you have the actual Grant Diary, why didn't you link to it?
It's clear you don't have it, that you're just assuming it's a statement of Grants.

2. Yes, I see that according to the timeline of the link, it was a meeting after Carrington's second letter.

3. If Gary James Bergera made a mistake, (several now, one at the beginning of the quoted meeting indicating John Taylor was alive for that particular meeting and now Woodruff didn't actually say the statement in question) what makes you think he didn't make other mistakes such as in the timeline?

So, you're saying Grant said it, even though your link say's Woodruff said it?
Show us a screenshot of the page with Grant actually saying it in his Journal then.
Because, you linked what is clearly your "source" for your judgment, give us the actual sources then.

4. So while we are waiting for the Grant Screenshot in full context and dated of Grant actually saying that and not Woodruff, on to the next thing.

Let's say you're able to prove it was Grant saying that on the date in question.
What are some other possibility's that you clearly ignore of why Grant could have said it was a John Taylor conversation?
- Grant simply misremembered "who" he had the discussion with, maybe it was actually with Woodruff? It is after all a story from 30 years later.
- Maybe Grant did have the conversation with John Taylor, but he later became unsure again?
- What are some other possibility's?

Why is it the anti-mormon mind only goes to "lying" as being the only possibility?
Again, a 30 year later story.... He could easily be mixing up facts. That doesn't equal lying, yet the anti-mormon distorted mind claims it does.

And by the way.... You do know that anti-mormons could actually be writing for that Journal of Mormon History you have linked to?
In fact, looking up Gary James Bergera..... He doesn't appear to be "pro-mormon", but even anti-mormon given some of his work and shoddy scholarship.
http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/ ... s-clothing

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

The "gift of discernment". That's such a funny way of stating someone can make their mind up on a matter.

- Doc

[_grindael]

LDS(whatever)

Either you are really naïve, or... hell, what's the point?

If you want to check out the diary, you can buy it here, (if you can afford it) http://www.amazon.com/The-Diaries-Heber ... B004AR95Y6

You don't publish something like this if it is fake. You can, but then everyone would know it. Please scour the internet and let me know if you find anyone who has complained that the above publication of his diaries is a fake or full of errors. But anything goes with those who just can't believe the truth, it has to be SOMETHING else except what it really is, Heber J. Grant lied.

I didn't link to a copy of the page, because no one has put the diary online. People generally want to get paid for their publications, and it would be against the law to publish the diary on the internet without the permission of the Publisher.

I do have a copy of the diary, but if you don't want to believe it, that's your problem, not mine. But you better be sure before you call people liars. But that's your M.O., so it doesn't surprise me a bit.

Carrington appealed to the "brethren" multiple times. The first time they discussed it (WITH JOHN TAYLOR) was on Sept. 16, 1886. But this was through LETTERS. The next day five apostles met (including Grant) and decided they would not readmit him. In early July, 1887 (just before John Taylor's death) Carrington wrote to Wilford Woodruff. Five weeks later, he wrote another letter to Woodruff (August 11, 1887) John Taylor was dead by this time. It was the next day, (August 12th) where they finally all met together for the first time and decided they would NOT readmit him. There are the notes that Grant took and copied into his diary, and there are separate minutes that were taken also. There are typed excerpts of those minutes (that Bergera also quotes from) in the Quinn Papers. After this decision, another letter was sent to the Twelve, (Sept. 12, 1887) written by Jane Carrington Young for Albert Carrington, her father. In that letter she quotes D&C 64.

A month later in NOVEMBER 1887 they finally all agreed to readmit Carrington into the church. There were no meetings with JOHN TAYLOR and the Twelve, and Grant got the D&C reference from Jane Carrington Young from the letter she wrote to the TWELVE in Sept. 1887. John Taylor was already dead and Grant was STILL UNDECIDED a month after he died, so he could not have consulted Taylor and changed his mind, because Grant didn't agree to readmit Carrington until NOVEMBER, 1887 and TAYLOR WAS DEAD.

Grant himself claimed that,

Some years ago a prominent man was excommunicated from the Church. He, years later, pleaded for baptism. President John Taylor referred the question of his baptism to the apostles, stating that if they unanimously consented to his baptism, he could be baptized, but that if there was one dissenting vote, he should not be admitted into the Church. As I remember the vote, it was five for baptism and seven against. A year or so later the question came up again and it was eight for baptism and four against. Later it came up again and it was ten for baptism and two against. Finally all of the Council of the Apostles, with the exception of your humble servant, consented that this man be baptized and I was then next to the junior member of the quorum.

Let's analyze this. When was Carrington excommunicated? November 9, 1885. When did he first "plead for baptism?" September 16, 1886. This was LESS THAN A YEAR LATER. There was no meeting with John Taylor. There never was. When Taylor was alive THEY COMMUNICATED BY LETTER. Only 5 apostles met on Sept. 17, 1886 and they concurred that he would not be readmitted. They then INFORMED Taylor by letter. They kept communicating by letter through the end of October, 1886. Here is the entry from Grant's Diary:

September 17, 1886 [Franklin D. Richards, Francis M. Lyman, Heber J. Grant, and John W. Taylor] unanimously decided that unless some additional light on the subject was given, that we did not care to consent to his [i.e., Albert Carrington’s] baptism. (Published Diary, pg. 23-24

This was the only meeting (only a part of the Quorum without the First Presidency) during Taylor's last year on earth. The next time the Quorum met in relation to Carrington was on August 12, 1887, after Taylor's death and this was less than a year later. It was only two years from the time of his excommunication until his rebaptism.

Was Grant confused? He didn't appear to be. He said, "From that day to this I have remembered those teachings," he claimed. (Conference Report, October 1920, p.7).

Yet, he gets all of the details wrong. He simply made up the story, because John Taylor was dead. He didn't simply mix up facts, he lied because nothing of what he said actually happened except that he was the last holdout to readmit Carrington. John Taylor could not have taught him the lesson he claims to remember, because TAYLOR WAS ALREADY DEAD and Grant was STILL UNDECIDED in August 1877 and only agreed to readmittance in NOVEMBER 1877, 6 months AFTER Taylor died. Also, Taylor NEVER MET with the Quorum in relation to Carrington. They communicated with him about it by letter ONLY.

Grant's Journal entry was a First Person retelling of a Meeting he had with the Quorum of the Twelve including the Prophet John Taylor.

NO, NO, NO!!!

And Gary Bergera is a GREAT HISTORIAN. He was only mistaken in attributing a comment made by Grant to Woodruff. This is a minor mistake. There are no other errors in his excellent Article. He is NOT an "anti-Mormon", but that is what mopologists do, call people names when they don't like the truth they print. And Gary never claimed that John Taylor was alive for the August 12th meeting. That was all you dude. YOUR MISTAKE. YOUR STUPIDITY. Taylor never met with the Twelve when they discussed Carrington's excommunication either. Taylor spent most of his Presidency in hiding. They all rarely met together. The reason that I know that Gary didn't make mistakes in the timeline, is that I have all the original source material myself. I have the diaries and minutes he quotes. If you think he made mistakes, get all the original sources and quote them with page numbers and details about HOW he made any mistakes. I would LOVE to see that, but I know I never will, because you are simply full of hot air and wouldn't know a "faq" if it slapped you in the face and laughed at you.

The Grant quote where he claims he is "very much undecided" is on page 50 of the Grant Diaries. Buy the Diaries and look it up.

Further Sources:

Apostle John Henry Smith's diary entry for that day shows who was present on the same date as the Grant entry:

Friday, Aug. 12, 1887 - Salt Lake City

We met in Counsel at 10 a.m. Present: Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Franklin D. Richards, George Q. Cannon, Jos. F. Smith, Moses Thatcher, F. M. Lyman, Heber J. Grant, J. W. Taylor, D. H. Wells and myself [John Henry Smith] present. The statehood question was considered and the probable cost taken into consideration. It is beleived that one half million will be required. It was voted that three thousand dollars each be allowed to L. Snow, E. Snow, F. D. Richards, George Q. Cannon, J. F. Smith, B. Young, D. H. Wells. Five thousand to President Wilford Woodruff. Two thousand M. Thatcher, F. M. Lyman, George Teasdale, H. J. Grant, J. W. Taylor, J. W. Young and myself. To be paid in cash. We took and considered for a time the case of Albert Carrington, but we did not reach a conclusion. (Jean Bickmore White, Church, State, and Politics, The Diaries of John Henry Smith, p.176

No John Taylor here, he was dead. Wilford Woodruff's Journal:

[August] 12 We Met in Council 11 Apostles. The subject of a state Government was Discussed. W Woodruff G Q Cannon & Joseph F Smith was appointed a Committee to dictate a Certain Branch of it. The subjet was discussed at Length.

The following Motion was made by Moses Thatcher and voted by the whole Council to Appropriate Annually in Cash the following sums to the following Persons: Wilford Woodruff as Presidet $5,000, L Snow $3,000 Erastus Snow $3,000 F. D. Richards $3,000, G. Q. Cannon $3,000, B. Young $3,000, Joseph F. Smith $3,000, D. H. Wells $3,000, M Thatcher $2,000, G Teasdale $2,000, F M Lyman $2,000 John Henry Smith $2,000 John W Taylor $2,000.

We discussed the properity of Baptizing Albert Carrington But the Council did not Consider it wisdom. It was so decided. (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, Vol. 8, p.453)

They voted on the amounts of their salaries, (PAID IN CASH, of course) and 11 apostles met, but no John Taylor, he was dead. Woodruff actually claims that they decided against rebaptizing Carrington, but Grant states that Woodruff,

Stated that he should not call a vote on the question, as our quorum was divided right in the middle. He felt that the Lord would not be pleased with a vote that was a divided one. Felt that we had better let this case drop. We all had a right to our views and our own feelings, and he was glad to have the brethren express their ideas freely and frankly, and he had no feelings because the brethren disagreed with him.

So... how did they "not consider it wisdom", when they simply let the matter drop? Nothing was "decided". So who is telling the truth here? These guys can't seem to get their stories straight on anything.

[_grindael]

The "gift of discernment". That's such a funny way of stating someone can make their mind up on a matter.

- Doc

That's why it's so much fun reading stuff like this:

"President Monson says softly and with some emotion. 'In my patriarchal blessing as a boy, I was promised that I would have the gift of discernment. I have to acknowledge that such a declaration has been abundantly fulfilled in my life.' Indeed, President Monson’s life—certainly his life as an Apostle and member of the First Presidency—seems in a sense to be one long, extended chronicle of the promptings of the Holy Spirit, with the many inspirational and varied miracles which have resulted from his response to those promptings." Jeffrey R. Holland, “President Thomas S. Monson: Finishing the Course, Keeping the Faith,” Liahona, October, 1994, 16–17.

MIRACLES! Where are these miracles? Wait... here's one... Rebels didn't attack and the Temple was saved... http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... tml?pg=all

[Guest]

The rebels were already surrendering by December 2,

A number of rebels had become discouraged by this time. Some left their units and entered nearby houses, changed into civilian clothes, and joined other civilians in evacuating the area.574 The rockets fired by the Sikorsky forced the soldiers to seek refuge in houses in White Plains.575 [Area where Mormon Temple was located] At 10:00 a.m., the NCRDC Tactical Command Post received telephone calls from rebel Marine soldiers at the Mormon Church negotiating for surrender.576

Government aircrafts continued strafing, firing rockets, and bombing rebel positions at various times of the day.577

The Third Wave – More Attacks by Rebels

The subsequent sporadic burst of rebel artillery fire hit the JOC compound. Tasked to defend the GHQ area,578 the 72 IB troops under Lt Col Lasan received information that enemy Marines with LVT support were on their way to assault their positions at 4:30 p.m.579 Together with the soldiers from the 203 Bde, they repulsed the rebel offensive which attempted to break through the AFP LOGCOM perimeter on Katipunan Avenue. More shooting occurred until 7:00 p.m.580

Camp Aguinaldo Defense Plan Implemented

A conference was held at about 8:30 p.m. to coordinate plans for the defense of Camp Aguinaldo and offensive action against rebel positions. At the ISAFP Battle Staff room, de Villa and Ramos met the COs of the 203 Bde, 701 Bde, andthe PC SAF Commander. The 203 Bde was tasked to secure the AFP LOGCOM area.581 Elements from the GHQ, HSC, 203 Bde, MSG and the trainees of the AFP TRACOM under Col Yamzon would secure Camp Aguinaldo. The 72 IB was assigned as a screening force.582

At 11:30 p.m., the government launched its counter attack. BGen Biazon directed one section of the weapons platoon of 72 IB under 2Lt Miravello Miranda to counter attack the advancing rebel forces at LOGCOM. [The AFP Logistics Command at CAMP Aguinaldo] They immobilized one rebel LVT with two shots of their 90 RR. A second LVT withdrew after encountering heavy fire from Miranda’s troops. Miranda then re-directed the artillery fire at rebel positions at the Veteran’s building.583

D.5. 3 December

The Final Wave – Massive Assault of Rebels

By early morning of 3 December, the rebels prepared their most massive offensive to take over Camp Aguinaldo. Heavy gunbursts of different calibers, cannons, as well as mortars were heard all over Camp Aguinaldo.584 The 34 MC under Lt Cal persisted in entering the Camp through Gate 1 at about 1:00 a.m. But as they neared the gate, they were repelled by mortar fire.585 http://www.gov.ph/1990/10/03/the-final- ... arratives/

The Government attack did take place, but they never planned to attack the Temple, they attacked the rebels advancing on Camp Aguinaldo, where the Rebels had gathered (which is why they "slipped away" in the night) which was far from the Temple Grounds. Earlier, the Rebels at White Plains had started making overtures to surrender, or desert. The Temple was never in any real danger of being caught in a crossfire. No miracle here.

[_ldsfaqs]

grindael..... Why didn't you actually respond to my last post?

Instead you responded to the PREVIOUS post, the one you already responded to, completely ignoring the facts.
You keep talking about Taylor being dead, I already conceeded that point, as it being a ERROR of the author at the link you gave.
He claims Taylor "called the meeting", thus implying he was alive still, hence my initial misjudgement on that issue alone.

I know why, because you don't actually have Grants Journal, you're just lying as usual.
If you had it, you could take 1 min to scan and upload to imgur.com the page where Grant says he was still undecided even after Grants death.

The author at the link says it was Woodruff, you say it was Grant who said it..... (thus an apparent second error by the anti-mormon author you link) SO PROVE IT!!! It IS after all your entire case.

That would be evidence of your case right there. Yet, you won't do it.
Further, you still haven't addressed the fact that there could be other reasons for Grants story other than lying (if you prove your case with the statement which you haven't yet).

Telling me to "buy" Grant's Journal myself, when YOU are the so-called "scholar" making your case, thus YOU should be providing the evidence of your claim, is nothing more than a cop-out and diversionary tactic.
Anyone with a brain can clearly see your entire argument is based the article you linked, not actually on Grants Journal.
If it was Grants Journal, you would show it to prove your case. But, instead you provide a "cop-out", telling me to buy the Journal myself.
Classic.....

Anyone else going to be fair and reasonable to support me here? Or, you all just going to be sheeple and believe the anti-mormon cause he's on your side?

He linked the article himself to demonstrate his case..... the article doesn't demonstrate his case.
It clearly states Woodruff said it. He won't provide a screenshot of Grant's Journal saying it since that IS his case.
Common people..... Some accountability here....

[_grindael]

grindael..... Why didn't you actually respond to my last post?

I did.

Instead you responded to the PREVIOUS post, the one you already responded to, completely ignoring the facts.

Nope, I addressed every point in your last post. You just are too dimwitted to see it.

You keep talking about Taylor being dead, I already conceeded that point, as it being a ERROR of the author at the link you gave.

It wasn't an error by the author, it was YOUR error. And you are still making it.

I know why, because you don't actually have Grants Journal, you're just lying as usual.

Nope, I do. You need to read the post dimwit.

If you had it, you could take 1 min to scan and upload to imgur.com the page where Grant says he was still undecided even after Grants death.

Why don't you just buy the Diary and confirm the quote? It's on page 50. Look it up.

The author at the link says it was Woodruff, you say it was Grant who said it..... (thus an apparent second error by the anti-mormon author you link) SO PROVE IT!!! It IS after all your entire case.

I did prove it. If you don't believe it that is YOUR PROBLEM. If you want to see the text in the Diary, buy one. The same text is quoted by Bergera. Read it and it is CLEAR that it is Grant that is undecided. This is the ONLY mistake Bergera makes.

That would be evidence of your case right there. Yet, you won't do it.

I don't need to.

Further, you still haven't addressed the fact that there could be other reasons for Grants story other than lying (if you prove your case with the statement which you haven't yet).

Yes I did, read my post.

Telling me to "buy" Grant's Journal myself, when YOU are the so-called "scholar" making your case, thus YOU should be providing the evidence of your claim. Anyone with a brain can clearly see your entire argument is based the article you linked, not actually on Grants Journal.

So you say. But you are wrong. As usual.

If it was Grants Journal, you would show it to prove your case. But, instead of provide a "cop-out", telling me to buy the Journal myself.
Classic.....

It's not a cop out, I have the Journal and you don't. No one else seems to be taking your side of this, because it is an inane, ignorant, stupid diversion.

Anyone else going to be fair and reasonable to support me here? Or, you all just going to be sheeple and believe the anti-mormon cause he's on your side?

No one is going to support you because you are an idiot that can't comprehend anything but your own distorted and delusional ranting.