I've agreed with harmony twice within the past five minutes -- once here and once on another thread.
I need to go lie down.
See? I told you you were mellowing. Here's proof positive.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
I'm not sure "agitated" correlates all that well with "annoyed" or "peeved". One can be one without being the other.
It's no use telling Gad that though Harm....... once thatbit is in his mouth, it is imitation Scratch come hell or high water...... I substantially agree with you however, but it's singing to the choir to try and show him this.
I'm not sure "agitated" correlates all that well with "annoyed" or "peeved". One can be one without being the other.
It's no use telling Gad that though Harm....... once thatbit is in his mouth, it is imitation Scratch come hell or high water...... I substantially agree with you however, but it's singing to the choir to try and show him this.
Geez, JM... if I only said something when I thought people would actually listen to me, I'd be mum.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
JustMe wrote:I don't think Tvedtnes was peeved at all at Yorgason. I think he just powerfully demonstrated his weaknesses. It has nothing to do personally with the man.
Of course, how could we get inside the mind of Tvedtnes? Certainly, no matter how harsh his language there could always be another interpretation if all we have are his behaviors absent any reports from him of his own feelings.
Actually, I have been good friends with John for over a decade, and I actually asked him and here is the response. I don't read it and weep. I read it and enjoyed. Here's John's mind from one who actually knows him.
I merely felt that it was my duty to point out that his “little known evidences” were not evidences at all. I didn’t take it personally, but I am concerned that the booklet keeps getting reprinted, as if no review had been done. I don’t know who is spreading rumors about my intention, but please set them straight. In my review, I praised Yorgason for his personal testimony. My review is posted at http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... um=1&id=49
John T.
So, would it be fair to say that it is the duty of critics to point out that his "over 300 articles" claim has been seriously compromised by his "resume padding"?
So, would it be fair to say that it is the duty of critics to point out that his "over 300 articles" claim has been seriously compromised by his "resume padding"?
I have never seen anything you write to be fair or realistic or objective, scientific, or acceptable. Everything you write has some poison to it that mars its credibility. And what's really sad is, I truly do think you can straighten that out, but you refuse to, enjoying groveling like a dog or something instead of becoming credible with a realistic understanding. Your shrill campaign against LDS scholars destroys anything of value that might accidentally slip from your keyboard.
So, would it be fair to say that it is the duty of critics to point out that his "over 300 articles" claim has been seriously compromised by his "resume padding"?
I have never seen anything you write to be fair or realistic or objective, scientific, or acceptable. Everything you write has some poison to it that mars its credibility.
Tell me, JustMe:
Does Tvedtnes's "resume padding" mar *his* credibility? Does his endless boasting?
I think someone suggested elsewhere that you are a sockpuppet for Kerry Shirts. Is that right? If so, are you flipping out at me because your feelings got hurt over my criticism of your YouTube films?