Editing the Official History

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Jason Bourne
God
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm

Editing the Official History

Post by Jason Bourne »

There are a number of instances where the LDS leaders after Joseph Smith edited and changed, sometime substantially , the text of the original. Van Wagner, in his rigdon bio offers this about plural marriage:

Original 5 October 1843:

"gave instructions to try those who were preaching, teaching practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives...Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife." (Scott H. Faurling, ed., An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith p. 417)


However under BY ten key words were deleted and forty-nine others added and it reads:

Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, reaching or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; for, according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the keys are confirmed; and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord direct otherwise. (History OF the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Vol 6:46)


Does this trouble you?

What does this imply?

Does it give ammo to the RLDS that Joseph Smith really did not teach plural marriage and BY added it?

Does it create distrust in the written record? What else has be tampered with?

Does it show that Joseph Smith was really lying when we wrote it and BY wanted it to look like he did not lie?

What other issues does it present?

User avatar
Mercury
God
Posts: 5543
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:14 am

Re: Editing the Official History

Post by Mercury »

Jason Bourne wrote:There are a number of instances where the LDS leaders after Joseph Smith edited and changed, sometime substantially , the text of the original. Van Wagner, in his rigdon bio offers this about plural marriage:

Original 5 October 1843:

"gave instructions to try those who were preaching, teaching practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives...Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife." (Scott H. Faurling, ed., An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith p. 417)


However under BY ten key words were deleted and forty-nine others added and it reads:

Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, reaching or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; for, according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the keys are confirmed; and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord direct otherwise. (History OF the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Vol 6:46)


Does this trouble you?

What does this imply?

Does it give ammo to the RLDS that Joseph Smith really did not teach plural marriage and BY added it?

Does it create distrust in the written record? What else has be tampered with?

Does it show that Joseph Smith was really lying when we wrote it and BY wanted it to look like he did not lie?

What other issues does it present?


Aside from the irony of joe teaching that polygamy is a nono I see this modification as a clear representation of individuals who would rather change the books instead of confronting past incongruities in what the leaders say and what they do. As you well know Jason this is not the first no the last.
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning

User avatar
Jason Bourne
God
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm

Re: Editing the Official History

Post by Jason Bourne »


Aside from the irony of joe teaching that polygamy is a nono I see this modification as a clear representation of individuals who would rather change the books instead of confronting past incongruities in what the leaders say and what they do. As you well know Jason this is not the first no the last.


Yes I know. This is just one example and there are other egregious ones as well. For me this is a BIG issue. I am interested in hearing how someone like Plutarch or Coggins deals with such changes and editing.

User avatar
Mercury
God
Posts: 5543
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:14 am

Re: Editing the Official History

Post by Mercury »

Jason Bourne wrote:Yes I know. This is just one example and there are other egregious ones as well. For me this is a BIG issue. I am interested in hearing how someone like Plutarch or Coggins deals with such changes and editing.


here's how they deal:

1. Place fingers in ears.
2. Repeat "LALALALA" over and over again until the person delivering material goes away.
3. Take the false sense of victory and dream of the many spiritual wives they will have once they leave this "lone dreary world".
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning

User avatar
Jason Bourne
God
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm

Re: Editing the Official History

Post by Jason Bourne »

VegasRefugee wrote:here's how they deal:

1. Place fingers in ears.
2. Repeat "LALALALA" over and over again until the person delivering material goes away.
3. Take the false sense of victory and dream of the many spiritual wives they will have once they leave this "lone dreary world".


I hope not. I am really interested about hwo they deal with such tampering.

User avatar
Mercury
God
Posts: 5543
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:14 am

Re: Editing the Official History

Post by Mercury »

Jason Bourne wrote:I hope not. I am really interested about hwo they deal with such tampering.


In my experience its irrelevant to them as all contradictory occurrences in church history are to them. For them they celebrate it because the church does not see it as a problem. They are in lockstep obedience to the cult therefore its just peechy for them.
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning

User avatar
Seven
Savior (resurrected)
Posts: 998
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:52 pm

Re: Editing the Official History

Post by Seven »

Jason Bourne wrote:There are a number of instances where the LDS leaders after Joseph Smith edited and changed, sometime substantially , the text of the original. Van Wagner, in his rigdon bio offers this about plural marriage:

Original 5 October 1843:

"gave instructions to try those who were preaching, teaching practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives...Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife." (Scott H. Faurling, ed., An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith p. 417)


However under BY ten key words were deleted and forty-nine others added and it reads:

Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, reaching or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; for, according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the keys are confirmed; and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord direct otherwise. (History OF the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Vol 6:46)


Does this trouble you?

What does this imply?

Does it give ammo to the RLDS that Joseph Smith really did not teach plural marriage and BY added it?

Does it create distrust in the written record? What else has be tampered with?

Does it show that Joseph Smith was really lying when we wrote it and BY wanted it to look like he did not lie?

What other issues does it present?


Hi Jason,
This does trouble me. I wonder what else could have been tampered with....D & C 132?

I believe the evidence that Joseph taught plural marriage and practiced it could possibly be tampered with by Brigham Young and those who followed him. I have spoken with some RLDS members who admit the Fanny Alger relationship was an affair. I will have to go back through the sources in Compton's book, but if I recall, most of the evidence that Joseph was practicing plural marriages came from Brigham's followers, and polygamy defenders.

It would be helpful to make a list of any polygamy teaching attributed to Joseph Smith and find out if the source was attached to Brigham. It's understandable that the RLDS take the position they do.
"Happiness is the object and design of our existence...
That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." Joseph Smith

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Post by harmony »

1. That our modern leaders either don't care enough to set the record straight or consider it okay to leave it as it is shows an arrogance that is highly suspect and a lack of integrity about our leaders today.

2. That our past leaders felt it appropriate to change the official record shows that the faults of our leaders today are no different from the faults of our past leaders.

3. Overall, what it shows to me is that the church is led by men, not God. Not that that's a surprise.

rcrocket

Post by rcrocket »

harmony wrote:1. That our modern leaders either don't care enough to set the record straight or consider it okay to leave it as it is shows an arrogance that is highly suspect and a lack of integrity about our leaders today.

2. That our past leaders felt it appropriate to change the official record shows that the faults of our leaders today are no different from the faults of our past leaders.

3. Overall, what it shows to me is that the church is led by men, not God. Not that that's a surprise.


Of course, this argument is completely undercut by your repeated statements that you hold a current temple recommend and that, you indeed, attend the temple. To secure a temple recommend you must state your affirmance that the Church is led by God. So, either you are lying today; you are lying about your recommend status; or you are lying to your bishop and stake president. Any alternative does not reflect well upon you. You are in a position different than most of the other malcontents and unhappy people here; they don't claim to have current temple recommends.

In any event, regarding the editing of official history:

1. The art of historography really did not develop until the late 19th Century, and then wasn't really understood except at the nation's most prestigious universities. Even H.H. Bancroft and William Prescott were guilty of changing the meaning of sources and ignoring critical sources when they didn't really fit the story they were trying to tell.

2. The Church's archives are required to edify and sanctify the Saints, and not to satisfy the curiousity of academics. Anything the Church publishes is fair game to support that mission, really. The text of the Book of Mormon may be changed. The endowment may be changed. The text of the D&C may be changed. All as the Lord may command.

3. You have repeatedly accused the brethren of being "arrogant" and lacking integrity. Again, your Temple Recommend interview completely undercuts that argument one way or another. You are required to affirm in your interview to the contrary. Nonetheless, although the Church may publish its histories as its sees fit, with few exceptions its archives are completely open to researchers to challenge and contest the Church's publications. This is completely different, for instance, than the canonical libraries of the Vatican and its U.S. churches, which are generally closed to researchers. When I have been in the archives, looking for sensitive material, I have never been asked to display my temple recommend or even affirm that I am a member of the Church. Whereas I dislike the policies in place against copying material, I have had complete freedom to transcribe on a computer what I have been provided. (I note that these policies are similar to those of the Huntington Library.)

User avatar
Mercury
God
Posts: 5543
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:14 am

Post by Mercury »

rcrocket wrote:
harmony wrote:1. That our modern leaders either don't care enough to set the record straight or consider it okay to leave it as it is shows an arrogance that is highly suspect and a lack of integrity about our leaders today.

2. That our past leaders felt it appropriate to change the official record shows that the faults of our leaders today are no different from the faults of our past leaders.

3. Overall, what it shows to me is that the church is led by men, not God. Not that that's a surprise.


Of course, this argument is completely undercut by your repeated statements that you hold a current temple recommend and that, you indeed, attend the temple. To secure a temple recommend you must state your affirmance that the Church is led by God. So, either you are lying today; you are lying about your recommend status; or you are lying to your bishop and stake president. Any alternative does not reflect well upon you. You are in a position different than most of the other malcontents and unhappy people here; they don't claim to have current temple recommends.

In any event, regarding the editing of official history:

1. The art of historography really did not develop until the late 19th Century, and then wasn't really understood except at the nation's most prestigious universities. Even H.H. Bancroft and William Prescott were guilty of changing the meaning of sources and ignoring critical sources when they didn't really fit the story they were trying to tell.

2. The Church's archives are required to edify and sanctify the Saints, and not to satisfy the curiousity of academics. Anything the Church publishes is fair game to support that mission, really. The text of the Book of Mormon may be changed. The endowment may be changed. The text of the D&C may be changed. All as the Lord may command.

3. You have repeatedly accused the brethren of being "arrogant" and lacking integrity. Again, your Temple Recommend interview completely undercuts that argument one way or another. You are required to affirm in your interview to the contrary. Nonetheless, although the Church may publish its histories as its sees fit, with few exceptions its archives are completely open to researchers to challenge and contest the Church's publications. This is completely different, for instance, than the canonical libraries of the Vatican and its U.S. churches, which are generally closed to researchers. When I have been in the archives, looking for sensitive material, I have never been asked to display my temple recommend or even affirm that I am a member of the Church. Whereas I dislike the policies in place against copying material, I have had complete freedom to transcribe on a computer what I have been provided. (I note that these policies are similar to those of the Huntington Library.)


I see your ad hominem "information" but all i hear is BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH.
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning

rcrocket

Post by rcrocket »

VegasRefugee wrote:I see your ad hominem "information" but all i hear is BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH.
'

I don't really see it possible to engage in an hominem argument against an anonymous person.

When dealing with anonymous posts, all one has to go upon is the four corners of the post. Harmony chooses to put exclamation points upon her malcontent posts with the statement: I am a temple recommend holder and temple attender.

By choosing to repeatedly make this claim, which I think is quite effective against the stupid when one writes as well as Harmony, she really does expose her argument to a rejoinder. And the rejoinder I have made is the only one possible.

Now, take your case. Your posts are poorly written, ungrammatical, and display lack of reading skills. But, at the least you are what you are -- an apostate. Do I condemn your apostacy? No. You are what you are and are not hypocritical about it. I can't counter your posts with the statement: You are an apostate and thus wrong. There is no logic in that.

But there is indeed logic in responding to Harmony's posts that her positition connotes a lie somewhere in the fabric. For one who continues to blow the trumpet of deception and lies, her position is particularly weak. Kinda like Bill Clinton talking to school kids about morality.


rcrocket

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Post by harmony »

What I see is that you cannot address the subject of a thread without first targeting the author of a post. You are consistently overstepping your stewardship, Plu. Try to rein in your animosity.

Of course, this argument is completely undercut by your repeated statements that you hold a current temple recommend and that, you indeed, attend the temple. To secure a temple recommend you must state your affirmance that the Church is led by God. So, either you are lying today; you are lying about your recommend status; or you are lying to your bishop and stake president. Any alternative does not reflect well upon you. You are in a position different than most of the other malcontents and unhappy people here; they don't claim to have current temple recommends.


And this addresses the current topic how? And this is your business how?

I never lie. Keeping track of lies requires too much energy and I have little excess. As far as I am concerned, the Church of Jesus Christ is led by God. I have no doubt of that. And as far as the LDS church being led by God, I'm sure he'd like to, but the 12 often thwart his best efforts, just as they have in the past (we have documentation of that thwarting, in the history of the priesthood ban). A group of men that will not listen to his promptings cannot lead as he'd like them to. I am entitled to my personal inspiration regarding any counsel or policy put forth by our leaders in Salt Lake City. That I think the leaders are thwarting God's intentions on many issues is a product of my personal revelation. Neither you nor the leaders can interfere in my relationship with God. Pres Benson said the church was under condemnation. Perhaps that should be expanded to include the leaders.

In any event, regarding the editing of official history:

1. The art of historography really did not develop until the late 19th Century, and then wasn't really understood except at the nation's most prestigious universities. Even H.H. Bancroft and William Prescott were guilty of changing the meaning of sources and ignoring critical sources when they didn't really fit the story they were trying to tell.


So you're saying none of the historical record can be trusted? I'm not sure that helps your argument.

2. The Church's archives are required to edify and sanctify the Saints, and not to satisfy the curiousity of academics. Anything the Church publishes is fair game to support that mission, really. The text of the Book of Mormon may be changed. The endowment may be changed. The text of the D&C may be changed. All as the Lord may command.


And how does changing the historical record edify and sanctify the Saints? Surely the church, as the keeper of all truth and God's own authority available on the earth, would be even more circumspect when it comes to the historical record than anyone else?

3. You have repeatedly accused the brethren of being "arrogant" and lacking integrity. Again, your Temple Recommend interview completely undercuts that argument one way or another. You are required to affirm in your interview to the contrary.


I am not required to refrain from calling a spade a spade, simply because I am required to sustain the leaders of my church. I can still sustain them, even though I think they are arrogant (at least some of them) and some of them lack integrity.

Nonetheless, although the Church may publish its histories as its sees fit, with few exceptions its archives are completely open to researchers to challenge and contest the Church's publications. This is completely different, for instance, than the canonical libraries of the Vatican and its U.S. churches, which are generally closed to researchers. When I have been in the archives, looking for sensitive material, I have never been asked to display my temple recommend or even affirm that I am a member of the Church. Whereas I dislike the policies in place against copying material, I have had complete freedom to transcribe on a computer what I have been provided. (I note that these policies are similar to those of the Huntington Library.)


And yet surely the leaders would prefer to have an accurate historical record, not a whitewashed or edited version. Anything less shows a marked lack of personal and institutional integrity.

User avatar
Mercury
God
Posts: 5543
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:14 am

Post by Mercury »

rcrocket wrote:
VegasRefugee wrote:I see your ad hominem "information" but all i hear is BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH.
'

I don't really see it possible to engage in an hominem argument against an anonymous person.

When dealing with anonymous posts, all one has to go upon is the four corners of the post. Harmony chooses to put exclamation points upon her malcontent posts with the statement: I am a temple recommend holder and temple attender.

By choosing to repeatedly make this claim, which I think is quite effective against the stupid when one writes as well as Harmony, she really does expose her argument to a rejoinder. And the rejoinder I have made is the only one possible.

Now, take your case. Your posts are poorly written, ungrammatical, and display lack of reading skills. But, at the least you are what you are -- an apostate. Do I condemn your apostacy? No. You are what you are and are not hypocritical about it. I can't counter your posts with the statement: You are an apostate and thus wrong. There is no logic in that.

But there is indeed logic in responding to Harmony's posts that her positition connotes a lie somewhere in the fabric. For one who continues to blow the trumpet of deception and lies, her position is particularly weak. Kinda like Bill Clinton talking to school kids about morality.


rcrocket


Anonymous? I clearly see Harmonys name right there in the post author field.

You bring nothing to the table.
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning

User avatar
Mercury
God
Posts: 5543
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:14 am

Post by Mercury »

rcrocket wrote:Now, take your case. Your posts are poorly written, ungrammatical, and display lack of reading skills. But, at the least you are what you are -- an apostate. Do I condemn your apostacy? No. You are what you are and are not hypocritical about it. I can't counter your posts with the statement: You are an apostate and thus wrong. There is no logic in that.


You just attacked her with an ad hominem construct so popular among those with nothing constructive to say. Do you actually have a counter to the points raised?
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning

User avatar
Jason Bourne
God
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm

Post by Jason Bourne »

In any event, regarding the editing of official history:

1. The art of historography really did not develop until the late 19th Century, and then wasn't really understood except at the nation's most prestigious universities. Even H.H. Bancroft and William Prescott were guilty of changing the meaning of sources and ignoring critical sources when they didn't really fit the story they were trying to tell.


So did these people do wholesale editing to change the meaning of something? And so what if this was done by others. I am sure you know of other editing, as do I, that changes things out right. One change writes into Joseph Smith's mouth a prophecy that BY will lead the Church. Joseph Smith never said that.

2. The Church's archives are required to edify and sanctify the Saints, and not to satisfy the curiousity of academics. Anything the Church publishes is fair game to support that mission, really. The text of the Book of Mormon may be changed. The endowment may be changed. The text of the D&C may be changed. All as the Lord may command.


Wow. Do you really believe that? So in my example above, on order to make BY look like Joseph Smith's chosen successor it was OK to write in a prophecy that never happened, a lie essentially, because is supports the mission of the Church. All IF THE LORD COMMANDS. Well how do we know the Lord commands? And would he God lie to further His mission? Is this called lying for the Lord and thus are you promoting an ethic that I really find hard to believe you would sanction under any other circumstances. Either I misunderstand you or I am really dismayed that a man that seems as intelligent as you could sanction such a position. Vegas basically said you would say something like this. I am astounded!

3. You have repeatedly accused the brethren of being "arrogant" and lacking integrity. Again, your Temple Recommend interview completely undercuts that argument one way or another. You are required to affirm in your interview to the contrary. Nonetheless, although the Church may publish its histories as its sees fit, with few exceptions its archives are completely open to researchers to challenge and contest the Church's publications. This is completely different, for instance, than the canonical libraries of the Vatican and its U.S. churches, which are generally closed to researchers. When I have been in the archives, looking for sensitive material, I have never been asked to display my temple recommend or even affirm that I am a member of the Church. Whereas I dislike the policies in place against copying material, I have had complete freedom to transcribe on a computer what I have been provided. (I note that these policies are similar to those of the Huntington Library.)


SO the Church can lie if it sees fit? And are the archives really this open? I thought they clamped down on this some time ago.

User avatar
Who Knows
God
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:09 pm

Post by Who Knows »

Jason Bourne wrote:SO the Church can lie if it sees fit?


Sorry man, that's the only explanation that fits - if you want to stay faithful. ;)
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...

rcrocket

Post by rcrocket »

Jason Bourne wrote:So did these people do wholesale editing to change the meaning of something?


Yes; often; usually unintentionally to fit their understanding of events. Which they believed was an accurate rendition.

And so what if this was done by others. I am sure you know of other editing, as do I, that changes things out right. One change writes into Joseph Smith's mouth a prophecy that BY will lead the Church. Joseph Smith never said that.


I looked in the post above and frankly see no reference to this in our discussion.

Either I misunderstand you or I am really dismayed that a man that seems as intelligent as you could sanction such a position. Vegas basically said you would say something like this. I am astounded!

SO the Church can lie if it sees fit? And are the archives really this open? I thought they clamped down on this some time ago.


My words stand as I have stated them; not as you have re-cast them. It is pretty easy to make somebody look foolish by simply foolishly restating an argument. I won't bite.

User avatar
Jason Bourne
God
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm

Post by Jason Bourne »

quote="Jason Bourne"]
So did these people do wholesale editing to change the meaning of something? [/quote]

Yes; often; usually unintentionally to fit their understanding of events. Which they believed was an accurate rendition.


Is it your position that the Church changes were done with this intent?

And so what if this was done by others. I am sure you know of other editing, as do I, that changes things out right. One change writes into Joseph Smith's mouth a prophecy that BY will lead the Church. Joseph Smith never said that.


I looked in the post above and frankly see no reference to this in our discussion.



I was bringing up another example. Why are you so obstinant. My questions are sincere. If this is the best you can do to help it is a sad reflection on you.

Either I misunderstand you or I am really dismayed that a man that seems as intelligent as you could sanction such a position. Vegas basically said you would say something like this. I am astounded!

SO the Church can lie if it sees fit? And are the archives really this open? I thought they clamped down on this some time ago.

My words stand as I have stated them; not as you have re-cast them. It is pretty easy to make somebody look foolish by simply foolishly restating an argument. I won't bite.


Uhhh.... let's see, I said I may be misunderstanding you. Why are you being such a jerk? If I did then clarify. If not then I am dismayed. I am not trying to set you up but interested in good responses and answers. Typically you post in an elusive and coy way. You are doing it here. Can you not do better?

User avatar
Mercury
God
Posts: 5543
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:14 am

Post by Mercury »

rcrocket wrote:Yes; often; usually unintentionally to fit their understanding of events. Which they believed was an accurate rendition.


So essentially the first person acount was edited by someone else in order to correct the original authors "misconceptions"?

This has transitioned out of apologetics bull and meandered into outright lying for the lard. Do you further any response that does not involve either a "so what" attitude, personal attack or plain old turning the world upside down to fit your messed up worldview?
And crawling on the planet's face
Some insects called the human race
Lost in time
And lost in space...and meaning

rcrocket

Post by rcrocket »

Jason Bourne wrote:
Why are you so obstinant. My questions are sincere. If this is the best you can do to help it is a sad reflection on you. Why are you being such a jerk? Typically you post in an elusive and coy way. You are doing it here. Can you not do better?


I've answered your questions; my answers stand. I'm sorry to be such a jerk and having such a sad reflection.

rcrocket

User avatar
Jason Bourne
God
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm

Post by Jason Bourne »

rcrocket wrote:
Jason Bourne wrote:
Why are you so obstinant. My questions are sincere. If this is the best you can do to help it is a sad reflection on you. Why are you being such a jerk? Typically you post in an elusive and coy way. You are doing it here. Can you not do better?


I've answered your questions; my answers stand. I'm sorry to be such a jerk and having such a sad reflection.

rcrocket


No you are not sorry. You are amusing yourself and I bet you are patting yourself on the back thinking you are quite funny. You are not. I asked decent questions, I responded to what you wrote best as I understood, you claim I did not get you right and I said that I might not have and could you clarify. I am left to conclude that you believe it is ok to change a historical record and insert things that were not there that even if it may distort the truth IF it furthers the mission of the Church. If you cannot do better then that it is pretty sad and again, I am amazed that someone of your apparent caliber would be ok with such a thing. I am sure you would not for any other entity or organization.

Can any other apologist do better then this?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], msnobody and 73 guests