And thank you also for demonstrating the truth of the point I made to Kishkumen earlier: when you rage that someone is a "liar," you are merely telling us how much you hate them personally.
To be clear, I never pretended to be "gracious" here. Since when in the hell are you ever interested in graciousness? Oh yeah, when
your integrity is on the line. Suddenly you're all about charity and graciousness.
If you notice a liar, calling him a liar = hate? This is a
non sequitur, but by your logic, FARMS authors, you included, are the most hateful people on the planet.
Clearly we agree that there are times when people deserve to be called out for lying, so at the very least you're a hypocrite for complaining to me about it. The difference is that you think this only applies to non-LDS folks who dare challenge LDS claims. I dealt with Dan Peterson's hypocrisy on this matter recently, pointing to dozens of references on the FARMS website where critics were described as disingenuous or worse, usually based on incomplete evidence.
Seriously, it is really hilarious the way you guys at FARMS respond when anyone from that tribe is accused of being dishonest, disingenuous, etc. Your argument is that we're uncharitable and refuse to acknowledge other possibilities for the mistakes that point to dishonesty. This is hilarious because you NEVER entertain or acknowledge the existence of alternative possibilities at to why the Tanners, or JP Holding, or (pick a critic) stated something in error. Apologists rejoice at the discovery of such errors because it provides them with the convenient opportunity to dismiss them entirely and poison the well - effectively labeling them all liars who are willfully misrepresenting the truth and therefore should not be trusted.
The general rule with you folks is that:
apostate + false statements = lies born from Satanic inspiration.
However, LDS believers + false statements = innocent mistake.
Even a child can see this is a double standard.