My First Encounter with Bill Hamblin

[_Kevin Graham]

My challenge still stands for our "super lawyer" from California, Robert Crockett.

So Bobby, are you willing to debate the points or not?

The points I argued are that 1) jihad doesn't always refer to defense, that 2) subjugated peoples under Islamic rule (dhimmis) could not "do whatever they wanted" as Hamblin asserted, and 3) the Crusades were a defensive measure.


I tell ya, I don't consider myself particularly bright, so what does it really say when the Church's best scholars, and now one of California's "super lawyers" (who is presumably skilled in the art of argumentum), cannot defend their claims and are reduced to well poisoning activists?

[_Themis]

Certainly that is untrue. There were eyewitnesses who said the latter were forgeries, and they appeared to be to those willing to look at them. Seems you know little of the Strang issues.

Plus, they were too conveniently similar to Joseph Smith's claims.

CFR

[_DrW]

My challenge still stands for our "super lawyer" from California, Robert Crockett.

Yahoo Bot is a Mormon attorney? That explains a lot.

When he gets around to making the apologies due on this thread, he owes me one as well.

[_Kevin Graham]

Yes, Yahoo Bot is Robert D. Crockett.

Eternal defender of, not Mormon beliefs, but rather Mormons themselves. William Schryver, Dan Peterson, Pahoran, etc, they can do no wrong, no matter how wrong their actions might be.

Bob may not provide references or back up his claims with evidence, but at least he's one of the good guys in the Mormon war against the Gentiles.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I'd say the weight of evidence far exceeds proof of the resurrection, but I believe it nonetheless on the strength of the evidence that exists.

There is a gold standard to reach, before one can consider multiple eye witness testimony "strong".


You and every other Mormon apologist seem totally unaware of it.