McKenna Denson goes down in flames. :-(

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: McKenna Denson goes down in flames. :-(

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Themis wrote:Yet you continue to ignore evidence and cannot be consistent.

Evidence is not ignored. Consistency and speculative thought at times may 'buck up' against each other until equilibrium/balance comes into play to settle things down. Although with some issues and/or controversies might remain in motion.

Regards,
MG
Last edited by Guest on Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: McKenna Denson goes down in flames. :-(

Post by _Lemmie »

I have a question wrote:
Themis wrote:Yet you continue to ignore evidence and cannot be consistent.

From another thread...

mentalgymnast wrote:Obviously, as I adjust my 'input' my 'output' is going to align itself more or less with a more traditional view/perspective towards those things having to do with faith/belief.

In other words, no matter the input all your roads will lead to Rome regardless. That’s not a truth seeker, that’s a conscious confirmation bias seeker.

Especially if the truthfulness of the "input" is evaluated based on whether it will confirm the starting conditions. It confirms the starting assumption? It must be true and objective. It doesn't confirm? It must be false and biased. When every piece of evidence is viewed that way, it is impossible to keep consistent standards of evidence.
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: McKenna Denson goes down in flames. :-(

Post by _Maksutov »

Lemmie wrote:Especially if the truthfulness of the "input" is evaluated based on whether it will confirm the starting conditions. It confirms the starting assumption? It must be true and objective. It doesn't confirm? It must be false and biased. When every piece of evidence is viewed that way, it is impossible to keep consistent standards of evidence.


MG embraces circular reasoning and presuppositions. Nothing can get in, nothing comes out. :wink:
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: McKenna Denson goes down in flames. :-(

Post by _Themis »

mentalgymnast wrote:Evidence is not ignored. Consistency and speculative thought at times may 'buck up' against each other until equilibrium/balance comes into play to settle things down. Although with some issues and/or controversies might remain in motion.

Regards,
MG

You have already admitted to ignoring evidence. When it comes to consistency I just pointed out you are not consistent with people like Sarah Pratt, and you admit you have no evidence of her making things up. Better hope people who see you associating with bad people don't hold it against you like you do with others.
42
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: McKenna Denson goes down in flames. :-(

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Themis wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:Evidence is not ignored. Consistency and speculative thought at times may 'buck up' against each other until equilibrium/balance comes into play to settle things down. Although with some issues and/or controversies might remain in motion.

Regards,
MG

You have already admitted to ignoring evidence.


Would you point out where I've said this as a matter of fact and within a contextual framework? I readily admit that I weigh the evidence. That's not the same thing as ignoring it.

Themis wrote:When it comes to consistency I just pointed out you are not consistent with people like Sarah Pratt, and you admit you have no evidence of her making things up. Better hope people who see you associating with bad people don't hold it against you like you do with others.


Again, as I put Sarah Pratt and Martha Brotherton together they look, to me, like peas in a pod. Or should I say two 'Consecratees of the Cloister'. That is if they ever made it that far in Bennett's order of things.

I think there is something to be said about the influence of a powerful figure/character can have over others. Especially where secret sex is involved.

Drum roll...time to bring Joseph into the picture and paint him with the same brush. The fact is, we KNOW what kind of person John C. Bennett was. But we then rely...well some folks do anyway... on people like him and his acolytes/disciples to describe for us the character of Joseph Smith.

Go figure.

Regards,
MG
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: McKenna Denson goes down in flames. :-(

Post by _Lemmie »

Mg, you sound like peacemaker. He says yes, Joseph Bishop may have fondled young missionary's breasts, but it is THEIR FAULT!
_peacemaker
_Emeritus
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:44 am

Re: McKenna Denson goes down in flames. :-(

Post by _peacemaker »

Lemmie wrote:Mg, you sound like peacemaker. He says yes, Joseph Bishop may have fondled young missionary's breasts, but it is THEIR FAULT!

You blind anti-mormons. It was McKenna Denson that sexually abused Joseph Bishop.
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: McKenna Denson goes down in flames. :-(

Post by _Shulem »

peacemaker wrote:
Lemmie wrote:Mg, you sound like peacemaker. He says yes, Joseph Bishop may have fondled young missionary's breasts, but it is THEIR FAULT!

You blind anti-mormons. It was McKenna Denson that sexually abused Joseph Bishop.

You protest too much. I figured you out and am on to you.

I trust YOU know all about this kind of stuff, don't you? Care to confess?

:twisted:
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: McKenna Denson goes down in flames. :-(

Post by _Themis »

mentalgymnast wrote:Would you point out where I've said this as a matter of fact and within a contextual framework? I readily admit that I weigh the evidence. That's not the same thing as ignoring it.

You have stated ignorance of Book of Abraham issues. That is ignoring evidences you know exist, but don't want to view them.

Again, as I put Sarah Pratt and Martha Brotherton together they look, to me, like peas in a pod. Or should I say two 'Consecratees of the Cloister'. That is if they ever made it that far in Bennett's order of things.

Again you give no specifics other then association. All of them also associated with Joseph and you trust and believe him. Again inconsistent. I don't judge any of them by who they associated with. I am interested in evidence of their claims.

I think there is something to be said about the influence of a powerful figure/character can have over others. Especially where secret sex is involved.

Joseph was having secret sex which you also know is true based on his supporters who knew him and some of his wives whom he was having this secret sex with.

Drum roll...time to bring Joseph into the picture and paint him with the same brush. The fact is, we KNOW what kind of person John C. Bennett was. But we then rely...well some folks do anyway... on people like him and his acolytes/disciples to describe for us the character of Joseph Smith.

We don't need to rely on them to see what kind of person Joseph was. We have his supporters for that, and you know they have established Joseph as a liar. Bennett's problem is going out on his own and doing what Joseph was doing without Joseph's approval. Joseph made sure people who did anything in the church did so with his approval.
42
Post Reply