DiscussMormonism.com

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700207011/Defending-the-Faith-Joseph-Smith-was-known-as-truthful.html?s_cid=fb_share

I'm currently engaged in a back and forth on Facebook concerning this article. The arguments from Mo's seem to be coming down to very silly dodging. Thoughts?

Perhaps it taught JSjr that it is possible for him to convince people to believe a lie?

I wonder if he's going to stick to puff pieces like this from now on.

Nevermind that we have concrete evidence that he lied his ass off about a number of things, TWELVE PEOPLE SAID HE WAS HONEST, ARE YOU CALLING THEM LIARS?

Well hey, what do you know? Yet another DCP thread. You guys are so original! Do you dream about DCP at night? Do you lay there mulling over the next thread you're going to start?

Well right off the top of my head I would say using William Smith as a credible witness for anything is a really bad idea. Bushman doesn't even make it past the first page of chapter one in Rough Stone Rolling before he calls William "unstable".

Molok wrote:Nevermind that we have concrete evidence that he lied his ass off about a number of things, TWELVE PEOPLE SAID HE WAS HONEST, ARE YOU CALLING THEM LIARS?

Liars, no.

Hoodwinked, yes.

Melchett wrote:

Molok wrote:Nevermind that we have concrete evidence that he lied his ass off about a number of things, TWELVE PEOPLE SAID HE WAS HONEST, ARE YOU CALLING THEM LIARS?

Liars, no.

Hoodwinked, yes.

Then enjoy hell.

Molok wrote:

Melchett wrote:
Liars, no.

Hoodwinked, yes.

Then enjoy hell.

Will there be cake?

Melchett wrote:

Molok wrote:Then enjoy hell.

Will there be cake?

Here's a sneak preview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC6UrMTC73A