Another "Prophet" caught fibbing...

[_beefcalf]

Hmmm... Ldsfaqs got quiet all of the sudden...

[_ldsfaqs]

I'm not "quiet".....

1. Took you long enough.

2. My wanting proof is not me somehow being an idiot.

3. Now, all you need to do is actually demonstrate that there are ZERO other possible reasons for the contradiction in Grant's statements other then "lying" as you claim.
But, I know you will never do that.

Anti-Mormons must always paint their enemy with the least amount of objectivity and latitude.
They can't be human, there can't be other reasons for problems, contradictions, etc.
It must always be something "sinister". It can't ever be something completely innocent and unintended.

[_grindael]

LDSwrong,

Yeah, here's the problem. I've been completely objective. I'm going by the ACTUAL facts. It's on YOU to prove that Grant didn't lie. We have his diary and the historical events that say one thing, and Grant's story thirty years later where he contradicts it all. You can speculate all you want about WHY he fibbed, but the fact of the matter is, he did. He didn't get just one small thing wrong, he got nearly everything wrong. Here are the facts:

The historical record shows that he could not have met with John Taylor because Grant claimed that Taylor was still alive when he came to a decision to forgive Carrington and we KNOW that didn't happen until Taylor was in the ground for six months. So this is a lie.

Grant claims that he spoke to Taylor and went to lunch and then read the D&C and arbitrarily opened to D&C 64 and then came back and changed his vote. This didn't happen because Taylor was already dead when Grant changed his vote and the D&C reference was provided by Carrington's daughter to the Apostles in a letter she wrote to them which was read by them. So that is another lie.

The ONLY THING Grant was truthful about was that he was the last holdout. All the rest was lies. Now, you can make up any reason you want for Grant telling these lies, but he still did so and that cannot be changed. Those are the facts.

As for you being an idiot, I told you that you were wrong that Gary Bergera did not claim that John Taylor was at the August 12th meeting, told you multiple times, and you still called me a liar. I then proved it to you. But your claim is that you are so much smarter than everyone else, when this shows that you lack any comprehension skills and that you will continue to plug dead horses long after you are told you are wrong.

Bottom line is that I was right about everything and you are and were wrong about everything. You called me a liar and said I didn't have the diaries. I do. You were wrong about that too. So all you have left is name calling without anything to back it up except your own fantastical imaginings. That is why you are a dimwit. You can't see the forest for the trees and you never will.

[_ldsfaqs]

1. You're the one that provided the link as evidence of your claim. It wasn't evidence of your claim.

2. Your link/author is the one who said Woodruff is the one who made the statement in question.

3. I made a simple error in "initials" at the very beginning, not realizing he was saying John Taylor's SON. (like I go around remembering the initials between two John Taylors)

4. I asked you by my second post to demonstrate your claim from Grant's Journal, since you said that the author YOU LINKED was wrong.

5. You proceeded to mock and deride, entirely refusing to link your evidence that your entire claim was based on. It took you around 5 or 6 posts before you FINALLY decided to link a picture that a person could bearly read. One almost wonders still if you faked it, instead of providing a proper link to a high res screenshot. But, I'll let it go.

Conclusion....

Bottom line, all of this would have been prevented if you had actually provided the proper source evidence of your claim from the beginning, instead of a link that didn't at all demonstrate your claim.
Further, your conclusion still does not address other possibility's other than lying.
Any actual good scholar provides other possibility's for "discrepency's" they find in a historical record instead of just calling people liars.

But, given that I've read some of your work on your website, you're not even close to a good scholar.
Yes, you are well learned, but you are not wise nor truthful in most of your claims.
Quantity does not equal quality.....

[_schreech]

Further, your conclusion still does not address other possibility's other than lying.
Any actual good scholar provides other possibility's for "discrepency's" they find in a historical record instead of just calling people liars.

I don't think I have ever encountered two more ironic sentences (if you can really call those word jumbles sentences) than the two above.

Oh, and then, there was that time when LDSfaqs said no good scholar just calls people liars without providing other possibilities right before he posted this, and immediately called that person a liar:

Yes, you are well learned, but you are not wise nor truthful in most of your claims.

Oh, and lets not forget Mr. faqs opening post in this thread:

"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."

Good elohim, I have never come across an individual less self aware than our resident clown prince, LDSfaqs....

[_Gunnar]

I have never encountered anyone who epitomizes the textbook definition of backfire effect more strongly than ldsfaqs.

[_Equality]

The sad thing for Mormon apologetics is that ldsfaqs, substantively, really isn't any worse than, say, Hamblin and Peterson. Take away all the improperly placed apostrophes and the stuff ldsfaqs argues is pretty much the same as what we can read on FAIR or on Hamblin's and Peterson's blogs.

[_ldsfaqs]

I fully admitted I made one honest error....
But again, I'm not the one who linked the material that claimed to demonstrate the claim.

It is not my fault that the author he linked also errored, say Woodruff made the statement in question.
It is also not my fault that grindael refused to provide the required source to demonstrate his claim.
It is also not my fault he doesn't consider or research any other possible explainations for the discrepancy.

I admit my mistake, but nobody else admits theirs nor holds the people in question accountable, for not proper sourcing, for diversionary tactics, and for simply childish conclusions that could be a number of other things then simple "he lied"..
That's not my problem.

[_Darth J]

I admit my mistake, but nobody else admits theirs nor holds the people in question accountable, for not proper sourcing, for diversionary tactics, and for simply childish conclusions that could be a number of other things then simple "he lied"..
That's not my problem.

So people who refuse to admit their mistakes and apologize are of questionable moral character, right, ldsfaqs?

[Guest]

I fully admitted I made one honest error....

No, you made MULTIPLE errors. You called me a liar (wrong), You claimed that Gary Bergera said that John Taylor was at a meeting after he died. You accused me of "abusing sources" which again, is not true. And not only did you claim that Gary Bergera said that Taylor was at that August 12th meeting, but YOU DID ALSO... "...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." Then you give us this whopper, "Clearly, John Taylor wasn't dead yet." Yes he was. And if you had one LICK of sense, you would have known that, because the date of the Meeting was 18 days AFTER he died. Another error on YOUR PART. You then made ANOTHER ERROR, and said, "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..." There was a date on the entry in Bergera's piece, but I guess you were too bent on trying to prove me wrong, than in investigating the facts. (No surprise there). So it is your own incompetence that is to blame. You then claimed that Grant must have recorded an earlier meeting with Taylor at a later date. Another idiotic assumption that only someone who can't comprehend the data would come up with. Then you tell us, "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." NOPE, because the HISTORICAL FACTS show that this could NEVER have happened. You were just making crap up, which is all you do.

Then you wrongly conclude, based on all of your stupid speculation based on wrong assumptions, misreading and failing to comprehend what you are reading: "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." Actually, you wouldn't know the actual truth or facts if they were to bite you in the ass. You then compounded your errors, by repeating them again! Then you make this fantastical statement:

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."

I DO use the primary sources. Unlike you, who only reads FAIRMORMON B.S., I have the actual documents. You don't understand sources, you don't understand history and you don't understand how stupid you make yourself look every time you post on this board.

Yes, you are a Dodo.