Those good Christians who write into my blog and call me or other folks names have finally helped me to see the light. Those assaults on my character and the characters of others have no place in Christian dialog. So as of right this moment, any person posting a comment on my blog who in any way says disparaging things about someone else under a guise of anonymity will not have their information posted.
I realize they may have other things to do, and I am not saying they cannot speak their mind, or be insulting, if that makes them grow as a Christian. I just won't let anyone do their own version of Shawn McCraney's School of Strawman Boxing any longer.
Peace,
Bob
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
51 comments:
nice back track from your position of posting everything. I guess if you were Ben Matlock you to could win every case because it would be hand picked. Ok Another question, Do you believe that God has a father that was a God before him? And he had a father that was a God before him also?
And your posting title, now that would be the pot calling the kettle black.
Boyd brother,
I am not saying they cannot post anonymously. They are free to do so. But if they want to call people insulting names, then they need to attach their name. If that is a form of censorship, so be it. Unlike God, I didn't forsee the end from the beginning, so I inaccurately assigned the personality trait of self control to people old enough to type. I have been shown that is wrong, so I am repenting of that false belief, and moving on. If the standard of displaying one's name is too high for some folks when they want to engage in name calling, then I probably don't want those folks posting anyway.
As I have said before, I have never rejected anyone who actually was writing about a topic. I have rejected a couple of advertisements, and there was one recently which used a lot of profanity. Again, having standards was not designed to trip up the good Christians who feel the need to question my personal genealogy or gender preferences, let alone blaspheme the deity they claim to worship.
Hope this clarifies my new "draconian" policy around personal insults. You are free to insult away, since you use your name, so this doesn't really impact your future posting activity, if that was a concern. :-)
Bob
"Before you contact your lawyer, let me remind you of something. Early in December of 2006: you met with Shawn (and his assistant and another young man who can verify that it was you) for a late night dinner after a talk Shawn gave at a church in Salt Lake. He said, in his show when he talked about it, that you were admittedly proud. He said that you remarked, while you were waiting for your dinner to arrive, "You know when I looked around at the people there at this meeting tonight, they reminded me of Santa's broken toys." And Shawn said, "We are all broken toys, Brother." And you said, "Yeah, I know we are all broken toys and we all have problems but these people were like the fall out of society there listening to you." Does this dinner with Shawn ring a bell? Do you remember this? Pretty despicable, Bob. I would hold off on that call to your lawyer.
If you don't believe me or remember, you can watch it here:
http://www.hotm.tv/shows/20061226.htm"
I just watched the show. Is this true Bob?
"I just won't let anyone do their own version of Shawn McCraney's School of Strawman Boxing any longer."
Translation:
My blog readers have exposed me so I won't post their comments anymore.
You do realize, Bob, that it doesn't really matter if they put their names because a person could write under any name they want? So it is still anonymous.
Speaking of anonymous, if the passage below by anonymous is true, then Shawn (and your non-mormon blog readers) were absolutely right about you:
“Before you contact your lawyer, let me remind you of something. Early in December of 2006: you met with Shawn (and his assistant and another young man who can verify that it was you) for a late night dinner after a talk Shawn gave at a church in Salt Lake. He said, in his show when he talked about it, that you were admittedly proud. He said that you remarked, while you were waiting for your dinner to arrive, "You know when I looked around at the people there at this meeting tonight, they reminded me of Santa's broken toys." And Shawn said, "We are all broken toys, Brother." And you said, "Yeah, I know we are all broken toys and we all have problems but these people were like the fall out of society there listening to you." Does this dinner with Shawn ring a bell? Do you remember this? Pretty despicable, Bob. I would hold off on that call to your lawyer.
If you don't believe me or remember, you can watch it here:
http://www.hotm.tv/shows/20061226.htm”
Oh I get it Bob, everyone else is a liar now, not just Shawn, even though it has been shown that you lied about the Santa's broken toys comment. The reason why you, all of the sudden, have this irrational rule about posting anonymously is because it was an anonymous who proved you wrong. Instead of admitting it and apologizing, which would show some maturity on your part, you lash out in anger and create this absolutely pointless rule of non-anonymous posting. You see, given that anyone could post under any name, they still don't have to worry about not being anonymous in the future. Nice try, Bob.
Bob, it seems you can't admit that you were wrong, and that you lied, and apologize for it. So who is the cowardly liar?
Well Bob, I guess that's going to eliminate a lot of people posting comments now. That's fine, the world is a better place without name calling and hiding behind a curtain, I'm always glad to see people posting comments with intriguing arguements, and I don't care from which side they are, just as long as there's a platform on which they can debate.
Bob,
I have some friends who placed comments with their names on them and they were not posted. Are you censoring all people now regardless of whether or not they place their names on the comments?
Bob, I think you should make them have an account and not just type in some random name (which I think one or two people are doing with a few different names to make it appear as though they are many).
Christine,
I have not rejected any comments. If they didn't get posted, they may have been in the current backlog (there were 15 new comments just now), but I published all of them. Otherwise, they got lost in the ether. Try again.
Bob
For my response to Shawn's statements and David's pointing out the December 26, 2006 show by Shawn, please see the "Lies, Darn Lies and Shawn McCraney" post comments. I never so this episode, and so seeing Shawn's comments 3 weeks after our meeting was news to me. That being said, I certainly did NOT say in any disrespectful fashion that people who can't live Mormonism are "Santa's broken toys". In fact, the nature of our conversation while waiting for our food was my belief, to Shawn's chagrin, that I believe people finding religion, even outside the LDS faith, is a good thing, and they will eventually embrace Mormonism, in this life or the next.
It is completely unbelievable that I would sit there and insult Nathan, the young man, and look down my nose at this group, considering there were several active Mormons in the audience, several non-anti-Mormons in the audience, and then the few crackpots. All of whom, I told Shawn, I thought was good they were finding faith in Christ.
I did not characterize people in any negative sense as being "broken toys". Notice Shawn even admits I agreed we are all broken toys, but he says it was my "attitude" (and that is a quote from Shawn's explanation) which looked down on them.
As for the depiction in the 2006 show that as we walked out the door, he pointed to the family and sort of ironically called them "broken toys", it simply did not happen.
I would be delighted to sit down with Shawn, Kevin and Nathan to engage in a conversation about the nature, context or if the conversation as recited by Shawn even took place. I wrote down my notes on Dec 7, 2-3 days after the meeting, and it is not in them. Contrast the probably accuracy of Shawn's comments three weeks after an event when Shawn gets my city wrong one week after attacking me on air for calling in, where he has a video record of the conversation, and he clearly did not bother to make notes on the conversation or to check the record.
I wish I had seen the show three years ago, but it doesn't change the fact that Shawn's representation is not in any way a reflection of that conversation.
Bob
Hey Bob,
You know I find it funny that people are jumping down your throat when you are controlling what is posted and what's not.
I was going to e-mail Sandra Tanner then I noticed a note at the bottom of the screen with very small print. The jist of the note was if I e-mailed her I was giving her permission to take my e-mail and twist it and then she would repost it....talk about being deceptive!
I e-mailed Shawn again and yet no response...surprise...surprise!
Take care Bob!
therealmormontruth.blogspot.com
"even though it has been shown that you lied about the Santa's broken toys comment."
A video of Shawn McCraney was used to prove what Shawn McCraney said.
Such damning evidence.
"David's pointing out the December 26, 2006 show by Shawn"
That wasn't David.
"Now I am going to provide a reason wherein I may have no recollection about saying something this awful. Because I said it in a positive way, and forgot it. Then I did not write it down, but said it in a very positive way. The "Rudolph the Rednose Reindeer" show has a scene depicting the "Island of Misfit Toys"."
Right! This is just another example of Mormons changing their story when evidence is presented.
First Bob says, "I am not the Santa's broken toys"-guy. This is one of Shawn's lies. He totally made it up. As in TOTALLY MADE IT UP. I've never even used the phrase at any time in my life.”
Then when a reader jogs his memory of the event, he says, “There were four of us at that meeting. If you are not Shawn, then you must be Kevin. Or you were not there, and are therefore repeating something Shawn is recalling from the vantage point of 3 weeks later. Doesn't really matter. I certainly did not say what Shawn says I said. I wrote notes of the meeting, and I don't recall the comment.”
Of course it wouldn’t be in his notes! He wouldn’t have it written it down. If I made a derogatory comment about someone, I definitely wouldn’t write it down. That doesn’t make sense. Also notice that Bob immediately tries to figure out who Anonymous is (in addition to making an anonymous censoring rule on his blog) because he knows that the people he had dinner with that night can verify that he was there and that he made the comment.
If it were untrue, I highly doubt that Shawn would make up that story from nowhere and that two people would verify it. And Bob knows that too. That’s why he wrote the comment written at the beginning of this comment – to cover his tracks. Bob is very intelligent but also very deceptive.
His comments on the issue go from, “I've never even used the phrase at any time in my life,” to, “Now I am going to provide a reason wherein I may have no recollection about saying something this awful. Because I said it in a positive way, and forgot it. Then I did not write it down, but said it in a very positive way.”
Hmmm, you tell me who is lying Sherlock!
""even though it has been shown that you lied about the Santa's broken toys comment."
A video of Shawn McCraney was used to prove what Shawn McCraney said.
Such damning evidence."
Walker, the evidence is eye witnesses. It is also Shawn's video documentation of the event 3 weeks after it happened. I wouldn't go into law if I were you.
JD,
It is ironic that when there is no proof, no compelling reason to provide an alternative theory, and knowing it would give my critics an opening to attack me, I did it anyway.
Your reasoning about Shawn not lying because there were witnesses present, however, is completely flawed. First, even Shawn's staff admits Shawn gets the facts wrong all the time. For example, I called in to the show once because Shawn said, as he had many times before, that Mormons don't like what he says, but they never challenge him on his facts. I mentioned that to the call screener, and she sort of giggled and said something to the effect, 'No, we get people all the time who call in to say Shawn has his facts wrong.'
Two immediately, glaring examples are the fact that even with a video record of the previous conversation with me, which included my name and place of residence, he got it wrong on his own rebuttal show.
He also got the facts wrong about Elijah Abel. Worse, he falsely represented Joseph Smith as a racist. He also failed to note that Brigham Young himself, or his missionary companion brother, ordained a black man while on a mission together in the 1830's. Instead he stuck to a demonstrably historically erroneous statement by Harold B. Lee because he prefers to repeat its error than to correct it with truth.
I have to agree with Shawn, but liken it unto Shawn, when he said that if LDS Apostles are wrong about these things, what else are they wrong about.
Have you asked yourself that question about Shawn?
The truth is that even when Shawn gets facts correct, he usually gets the implications or impact of those facts wrong. I previously discussed how he got the facts wrong around the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and by doing so completely misses the reasons various events transpired.
Which brings us back to accusing me of back tracking. The only backtracking I am doing is saying that I never accused people who cannot live the LDS religion of being inferior or of being "Santa's broken toys". Our conversation was pleasant, and never became loud. I noted that in the notes. The only frustration ever expressed by Shawn or Kevin during the meeting was when they were stumped by scriptures they could not harmonize with their beliefs. 1 Cor 13 was such an example. I noted that in my notes as well. So if there had been some kind of profound "we're all broken toys, brother" moment, as a rebuke by Shawn of me, that would have been in my notes. It is not. So I don't believe it was ever said in the way or responded to, or followed up on, by myself or Shawn.
Continued below
Continued from above:
Lastly, Shawn's personal statements are not reliable evidence. Shawn's ability to leave out the most important elements of his own behavior in retelling stories is now practically legendary. He wrote a book, spoke dozens if not hundreds of times of his leaving the LDS Church, and wrote and commented about the circumstances of his excommunication many, many times, and never once, in nearly 10 years, bothered to mention he had committed adultery.
It should be noted that the LDS Church never commented on that either.
However, I had become aware of the adultery through people who knew about the adultery, and you are free to look back through any blogs or comments by me, and you will see I never disclosed it. In fact, I never even told my wife about it, I literally told no one.
It was not until some guy, whom I don't know, have never spoken with and have no connection to whatsoever, directly asked Shawn on the air about the issue that he finally admitted it. I think it he finally had to admit it because the young woman he cheated on his wife with lives in the Salt Lake area, and had he denied it on air he would have been shown a liar about it fairly quickly.
You don't think that has some bearing on his reliability as a witness in recounting his personal events? Putting the best possible spin to make Shawn look good and others look bad is standard operating procedure at HOTM. Thus he calls me names, personal attacks ("mean", "deceptive", "nit-picky") and provides no opportunity to allow me to respond.
As I have said before, Shawn is welcome to post here anytime. I would love it. But listen to what Shawn says when he gets put on the spot, such as with Walker calling in. "I am not a scholar, I am a messenger." That is not what he says when he wants you to believe Mormonism is unBiblical. He "knows" because of having been a Mormon for 40 years. Yet his "knowledge" is nearly always at best tainted, and at worst just flat out wrong.
So I did the honest thing and wrote that maybe in an entirely different context, and using different words, I may have made a statement indicating how good I thought it was that people, like those Misfit Toys, find faith and fulfillment, because that is a good thing. To twist that into a statement condemning non-LDS or ex-LDS, when I was sitting at the table with two, and which created no reaction from those sitting there at the time, is false. Such an event never took place.
Hopefully that clears it up somewhat.
Bob
I don't think people realized that your story was hypothetical, Bob.
You made it pretty plain that you still don't remember it and that this was the only context that you could imagine it taking place in based on what you remember.
People need to read more carefully.
JD,
One other note. You say:
"If it were untrue, I highly doubt that Shawn would make up that story from nowhere and that two people would verify it."
This is not true. Two other people have not verified Shawn's story. In fact, I have spoken to Keven at least 6 times since this story ran in 2006 and we never discussed it because I was unaware. I can guarantee you I will next time I see him.
I have seen and spoken with and played chess with and discussed Mormonism with Nathan literally dozens of times. Nathan has personally defended my character when folks have said derogatory things about me. I highly doubt that would be the case if I had said such a thing. And yes, you can bet I will discuss the issue with him the next time I see him as well.
So don't assume that because Shawn says there were witnesses present they automatically side with him. Notice when he accused me of lying to his call screener he never said "I spoke to her about what he said." He simply said I lied to her. Which I did not.
So when you start parsing deceptive language, be careful in not jumping to the conclusion someone wants you to reach without them actually saying it. I stand by my statement that I have never used the phrase "Santa's broken toys". I never have. I may have used the "Island of Misfit Toys" phrase, but as I have tried to elucidate, the context of the conversation when we were discussing people leaving the LDS faith was positive, and there was no attack on humanity or non-LDS or even ex-LDS. Shawn said "Can you believe this guy?" to Kevin after I said that I felt people who embraced other Christian religions would eventually become LDS in this life or the next. That is the only context I can imagine Shawn has twisted in the fashion he has.
I don't have people. I don't have people watching his show for me every week, and I don't watch his show every week. In fact, this past week I only watched intermittently for the first 15 minutes or so, until I saw his attack on me. I then watched network TV and responded to business emails. So I am scrambling to protect my good name, and I want to be accurate about something which transpired three years ago.
It would be easier if Shawn cared so much about getting the details correct.
Out.
Walker,
Thank you for bringing that out. I am trying to be fair, which means I don't further the conversation by digging in my heals and insisting there is no possible way such a conversation could have occurred. My belief is Shawn's memory of the event is highly colored by his desire to see me as evil.
Remember, Shawn was saying all kinds of things about me before he ever met me that night. I blogged about it on Shawn's blog, which he shut down because, as previously noted, too much defense of the LDS Church was happening instead of the pounding he had wanted. Remember, I had just the month before thoroughly embarrassed Shawn by printing his famous statement:
"Bob, but I don't care what your points are. And I don't read them to prove my indifference." (Shawn McCraney Email of Nov 6, 2006)
So to assume Shawn's memory three weeks after the event is better than my notes 2 days after the event is fallacious. He presents no witness, quotes me from memory (how tough is that three weeks after the fact?), and then acknowledges, on air, that the second part of the quote was actually not my words but, (again, quoting his broadcast), my "attitude". What you don't have from Shawn is the presentation of any kind of contemporary corroboration, any witnesses or any confession by me.
In the spirit of trying to figure out where he is coming from, I have been trying to work through the possibilities. I stand by my statement that I never said non-LDS are like santa's broken toys. It was not the tone of the discussion, and I am bright enough to recognize irony. I did put in my comments in my notes that I found Shawn to be prideful. He wants to irritate people with his physical appearance, he has a disdain for organized religion and authority, and finds justification for his unrepentant, non-conforming nature in his interpretation of the Bible, which puts him at odds with the hierarchal structure of the LDS Church. Because he never was a believing Mormon, his "insider" views are truly limited to one who spent 40 years as a fraud in the Church, many of the years actively professing belief and obedience while actually engaging in some of the most heartbreaking behavior possible for his family. Finally, he himself notes he is not in any way to be considered anything more than a talking head repeating information derived from anti-LDS sources which he does not fact check with LDS sources. His Elijah Abel stuff is exhibit A.
Here is how he describes himself:
I am NOT an apologist - I am a reporter of facts. I am not an intellectual or an academian. I simply report doctrine and history. I can reason fairly well, but have NEVER claimed to be an apologist. I've no interest in it. (Shawn on Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:40 am)
Not an apologist? Meaning one who defends his faith? Strange, since his professed objective is:
We are not out to destroy the physical church but seek to confront and help remove any doctrines which demand anything more than faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. (From Bornagainmormon.com About Us website.).
Remind me how you do that by avoiding engaging the active, believing members of the Church?
Sorry, but the conversation the way Shawn presented it never happened. We talked about a lot of things, nearly 3 hours worth.
BTW, Shawn noted we got done at 1AM on Dec 5. Not true. If precision matters, and apparently it does, we got done at 12:20AM. Shawn went to go sleep in an office at the studio, I went to my home. But if he gets the city I live in wrong after 1 week with documentation easily available, and he gets the time our meeting ends wrong by 40 minutes 3 weeks after we met, what makes you think his memory is so sharp he got a highly negative statement which only he says occurred correct?
In court, I would be found not guilty due to the lack of evidence.
Bob
Bob,
I don't know if I can speak for most people but common sense would tell me not to come to a conclusion about it until the witnesses come forward.
"I don't think people realized that your story was hypothetical, Bob.
You made it pretty plain that you still don't remember it and that this was the only context that you could imagine it taking place in based on what you remember.
People need to read more carefully."
Walker, that wasn't JD's point. His point was that Bob's comment, hypothetical or not, was made to cover his tracks because there were witnesses to the event. I would actually like to see what the witnesses have to say. If I am ever at McCraney's show, I will ask them about it.
"Walker, that wasn't JD's point."
David, I wasn't responding just to JD.
"cover his tracks because there were witnesses"
He covered his tracks because there were witnesses by...naming the witnesses. Makes perfect sense.
We'll just wait and see what the witnesses have to say.
"I don't have people watching his show for me every week, and I don't watch his show every week."
Before you attack and slander Shawn McCraney on your blog, maybe you should watch all of his shows. Then you would be more informed and wouldn't be so embarrassed when someone reminds you of a dinner you had with him a while back that you conveniently forgot about.
I have personally spoken with the two witnesses and they both corroborate Shawn's story. Sorry Bob!
If Mike's right, an apology is expected, Bob.
I got your back with Mormon teachings, but if you were wrong, just say so.
But I will await your own contact with the witnesses.
I guess since there are witness’s the story must be true. So, using this statement as a measuring rod I know another story where the testimony of witness’s was called into question.
Something to think about.
Maddog
Mike,
You may have spoken with both of the witnesses, but I haven't, and if they are saying, as Shawn said my attitude was, that I was looking down my nose at (using Shawn's phrase) "the dregs of society", I will challenge them as to both how they remember the statement and the context of the statement. I am copying below some of the direct quotations I wrote in my notes during Shawn's presentation at the Church. I don't know what you asked. I respect both Kevin and Nathan. But I stand by my statement that I never made a disparaging statement of all those people as "santas' broken toys". The conversation before the food arrived, as I have previously written, was about the fact I was happy for the folks who don't find comfort in their LDS faith, and go elsewhere, because they will return eventually to the fold. And if I made fun of some of the anti-Mormons, which I don't deny is possible, I don't apologize for that. But I would never, ever characterize everyone in a room, filled with a mixture of active LDS, inactive LDS, ex-LDS and non-LDS as a bunch of losers. It is absurd on its face, given Nathan was sitting across from me, that I would insult him and everyone else there.
Here are a couple of comments by people in attendance at Shawn's meeting, as written in my notes:
"Another guy, seeker of absolute truth, joined LDS Church two years ago, believes LDS who worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. Finds no contention. Loves Shawn."
Do you think I would call him one of "santas broken toys" in a derisive manner?
Merle--[friend of Shawn's and active, believing LDS]--(responding to comments by Shawn and a lady named Cambria)Why use the word "deception"? States he "is LDS".
So I would call him "santas' broken toys"?
David Jensen--Christian from South Central L.A., Belongs to Calvary Baptist Church. Every day he fights his human side and turns to Jesus for help. Says, "If you can love, you're good."
[Made no negative comments about the LDS]
However, there was a lady, the last questioner, who said she "sees lots of oppression with their [LDS]family. Shawn replied "That is the demonic nature of Mormonism." "The Church puts people in bondage." "That is totally what I believe." "Being a Christian [in Salt Lake City] is harder than being one in Mecca."
Those are ridiculous statements, in my opinion, by Shawn and the lady.
Earlier a man, ex-LDS, took Shawn to task for not being more adamant that if you are converted you must leave the Church. Said Shawn:
"If [I] said the born again Mormons must leave the Church, then he would cut out half of the audience."
This led to an interesting observation by Shawn that "A guy with the 1st name beginning with 'J', has begun infiltrating the Mormon ward" he lives in. At dinner Shawn elaborated that this guy is trying to lead active LDS out of the Church by pretending to be a believing Mormon.
Would I think some of these people are nuts? Yes, no doubt. Would I believe the whole room is a bunch of nuts and "santas broken toys"? Not a chance.
(continued below)
That is a sample of notes taken by me during the meeting, as the statements were being made. Thus it is literally impossible that I would say the room was a bunch of "santas broken toys", since my contemporaneous notes show there was a huge spectrum of LDS believers to ex-LDS nut cases all in one box, with Shawn saying things like:
""I think the [LDS Leaders] are puppet masters, getting what they can out of them [the non-LDS]" Was addressing how Greg Johnson of Standing Together Ministries [is being used in] talking with LDS leaders".
Again, that is right out of my notes taken during Shawn's presentation. I found the statement silly, and the person asking the question who is foolish enough to believe the answer a koolaid drinker. There were those type of folks in the room. But as my notes clearly show, I would never have characterized the whole room as "santas broken toys". Nor as "the dregs of society". Did I make a joke or statement about some of the crackpots, or make a statement about the folks finding faith? I have no idea. But it is simply impossible that I would characterized the entire audience as "santas' broken toys". My notes literally prove I did not think that at the time. Which is why I insist that any assertion to the contrary is a gross misrepresentation of what I said in its context.
Thanks for writing.
Bob
It appears that context is the key.
This is rich: the anti-Mormon double standard on display for all and sundry to see. Now, if ANYONE can provide written or audio PROOF of Bob actually making the "Santa's broken toys" statement, I'd like to see or hear it. What we have so far is Shawn CLAIMING that Bob said it, and all you Shawn fans taking his word as gospel. To be honest, I don't put much stock in Shawn's ability to get the facts straight. Years of dealing with anti-Mormons have taught me that almost every one of them will lie when it suits them, especially if they believe that the lie will con someone into leaving the LDS church. Harsh words, I know, but that's what experience has shown me. Now, if you folks can come up with some "proof" other than "Shawn said this" or "Shawn said that", you'll have my ears (or eyes, as the case may be).
Your move.
Everyone,
I want to get this behind me. I simply cannot believe I ever would say, in a context derisive of all the people in attendance at Shawn's presentation, that those people are "santas' broken toys". But I am not perfect, and since I don't have contact with Nathan or Kevin very often, and I have no plans to seek them out to visit with them about specifically about this issue, when I do see them I will apologize to them for creating this impression, if they in fact have this impression.
To the folks on this page, I likewise apologize for any statements which are harsh and unChristian.
While I will continue to deal with apologetic issues, Shawn's so-called ministry and the firewalls he has installed to avoid dealing with actual issues of doctrine is, as my wife says, just negative energy. It is a pit, and I will no longer be sucked into this.
So, as I say, moving on. I am going to just stand down on Shawn's stuff. Besides, there are many other issues which probably have more value generally. My experience is that the folks who watch Shawn's show who are negative about the LDS faith, stay negative. Those who are not, see it for what it is. I personally know folks who have been misled by things they have learned on Shawn's show, but attacking Shawn is not the correct path. Shawn attacks himself when his arguments are held up to historic truth and Biblical analysis.
So, I am signing off of this issue.
Thanks,
Bob
I think your wife is a smart lady.
Bold, Bob. That is good though. Negative energy is never good. That is why I quit posting in several forums.
Nonetheless, expect an onslaught of accusations.
OK Bob, we'll let you keep your dignity.
"some random name (which I think one or two people are doing with a few different names to make it appear as though they are many)"
Good observation there Einstein. You're a smart one!
In any case Bob, thanks for showing McCraney's arguments for what they are. "ya done good"
"as my wife says, just negative energy"
The title of your blog is "Anti Anti Mormons" and you are just now realizing that attacking the detractors of the church is going to breed negative energy?? Boy, you learn quickly!
Sebastian,
I am married to the smartest woman in the world. Unfortunately, she is not married to the brightest guy in the world.
Merry Christmas.
Bob
JediMormon,
"This is rich: the anti-Mormon double standard on display for all and sundry to see. Now, if ANYONE can provide written or audio PROOF of Bob actually making the "Santa's broken toys" statement, I'd like to see or hear it. What we have so far is Shawn CLAIMING that Bob said it, and all you Shawn fans taking his word as gospel."
Let's hold the BoM to these standards. Show me some PROOF. All I hear are Mormons CLAIMING that it is true. "The Spirit told me it is true. I KNOW this church is true." Ring a bell?
Cody D
"This is rich: the anti-Mormon double standard on display for all and sundry to see. Now, if ANYONE can provide written or audio PROOF of Bob actually making the "Santa's broken toys" statement, I'd like to see or hear it. What we have so far is Shawn CLAIMING that Bob said it, and all you Shawn fans taking his word as gospel."
"Let's hold the BoM to these standards. Show me some PROOF. All I hear are Mormons CLAIMING that it is true. "The Spirit told me it is true. I KNOW this church is true." Ring a bell?"
Excellent point Cody!
"Let's hold the BoM to these standards. Show me some PROOF."
Well, everyone wanted to hear from the witnesses of the conversation. The gold plates had 12 witnesses who never denied their testimony.
"Well, everyone wanted to hear from the witnesses of the conversation. The gold plates had 12 witnesses who never denied their testimony."
Oh yeah, all the ones who said they saw them spiritually? Right!
What Walker fails to mention is that two thirds of the witnesses ended up leaving the church and recanting what they said. Interesting. I don't see the witnesses in the "Santa's Broken Toys" case, recanting their story or leaving (and bad mouthing) Alathea ministries for that matter.
Anonymous,
I suppose it is too much to hope for that you actually read the information provided in the various posts and responses on this blog. But couldn't you at least check your completely unfounded accusations. So here is the list, which ones recanted:
David Whitmer
Martin Harris
Oliver Cowdery
Christian Whitmer
Hiram Page
Jacob Whitmer
Joseph Smith, Sen.
Peter Whitmer, Jun.
Hyrum Smith
John Whitmer
Samuel H. Smith
This should be rich.
I must concede, there is an idiot website out there which claims the witnesses denied their testimonies. Literally, from a historical research standpoint, should be considered a very bad prank. Each and every one of the men on the list went to their graves testifying of the reality of the Book of Mormon, and their witness being true.
The single biggest misrepresentation is that they had seen the plates ONLY "with a spiritual eye". Not true. When Martin Harris learned his testimony was being assaulted because of an interview he gave, he made sure to explain that he had in fact handled the plates with his hands and they were as real and tangible as any physical object, and he had seen them with "these eyes".
So come on. You said two thirds, which is about 7 or 8 of the 11 witnesses.
Bring it.
I would just like to throw this quote in.
Martin Harris said, "These plates were usually kept in a cherry box made for that purpose in the possession of Joseph and myself. The plates were kept from the sight of the world, and no one, save Oliver Cowdery, myself, Joseph Smith, Jr., and David Whitmer, ever saw them (Early Mormon Documents, vol. 2, p. 306)."
That still leaves 7 people off of your list. Is 7/11 close enough to two thirds?
Cody D
Cody,
Please. Martin Harris throughout his life referred to himself and the 2 other witnesses in his account, since they were together and were the first to see the plates, and the only ones to see the Plates and the angel and the other artifacts. He repeated that testimony dozens of times. It does not exclude the Eight Witnesses. In fact, Harris in one interview, included, incidentally in Vol. 2 of Vogel's group of interviews of Harris, notes that the testimonies written in the BoM are exactly true.
More to the point, those other 8, not 7, witnesses are nowhere "recanting" their testimony, as Anonymous claimed. No where. Harris states adamantly on several occasions that none of the Three Witnesses ever recant. I am still waiting for that "proof" they recanted.
As I have also previously noted, the assertion that Brigham Young asserts that some of the Witnesses recanted is actually rebutted by the talk from which the statement by Brigham is twisted out of context by the Tanners, and repeated by so many people. He obviously did not mean the printed statements by the Witnesses, since none of them were ever Apostles.
Which begs the question, again, Why do you critics of the LDS Church constantly accuse the Apologists of the LDS Church of being unreliable and deceptive, and when we PROVE the Tanners are lying and deceiving people with their presentation of facts, you critics STILL trust them as reliable?
Is it just me, or is this a pretty obvious double standard?
Thanks for the comments.
Cody quoting me: "This is rich: the anti-Mormon double standard on display for all and sundry to see. Now, if ANYONE can provide written or audio PROOF of Bob actually making the "Santa's broken toys" statement, I'd like to see or hear it. What we have so far is Shawn CLAIMING that Bob said it, and all you Shawn fans taking his word as gospel."
Cody's response: Let's hold the BoM to these standards. Show me some PROOF. All I hear are Mormons CLAIMING that it is true. "The Spirit told me it is true. I KNOW this church is true." Ring a bell?
My response: Cody…I’m surprised that you didn’t see the flaw in your statement. Why don’t we hold the Bible to the same standard you just placed on the Book of Mormon? Show me some PROOF. All I hear are Christians CLAIMING that it is true. You see, my claim that the Book of Mormon is true does not damage the character of some other person. Shawn’s claim that Bob made the “Santa’s broken toys” statement, does. And no, it didn't "ring a bell" because you are trying to make a case for apples and pickles being similar, when there is no such case to be made.
Post a Comment