static wrote:I believe John Dehlin was misinformed, and is perpetuating that misinformation because he doesn't like DCP or Greg. He isn't necessarily lying; he probably didn't know he was misinformed. Like me, and like you he probably automatically believes every wacko conspiracy theory before any evidence is presented.
At least have the guts to own up to the fact that you implied John was lying. But you can't, because you are a passive-aggressive, deceptive little weasel, who lied at the outset of his entrance into this board and continues to lie.
In other words, he perpetuated misinformation. Unless a "hit piece" is produced, I withhold judgement on its existence. Knowing Greg, I choose to believe it doesn't exist at all.
Yeah, we know Greg from his apologetic writings, and that is exactly why we believe that he did write said piece. It is entirely characteristic of his ethic to write a poison pen letter to one of his ideological foes in a journal. All you are telling us is exactly how little we should regard your judgment and character.
I realize this is in stark contrast to your belief system, where, if DCP says something exists but can't produce it (Carla Ogden letter) you automatically believe it never existed. When Dehlin says any old thing you automatically believe him.
I know you like to pretend that you are slow for the sake of the dimwits who just might let these little deceptions slide, but how likely do you think it is that John Dehlin, being in the position he has placed himself, would lie about having solid information implicating a General Authority in his defense, if it were not true? Indeed, it is not something that someone who has shown the relative restraint he has shown over the years, would ever place out in there on a whim.
On the other hand, we have Daniel Peterson, who, for the sake of his cause, has slipped around more gaffes by prevarication than any of us can probably ever hope to remember. What risk does Daniel take by saying that he vaguely remembered some Watson letter that says exactly what the current party line on an issue would demand? Zilch. Nada. Zip. Nihil.
So, "static," that is why anyone with a lick of common sense would accept John's word on his claim over Daniel's on the Carla Ogden fax, which, as we know, only became known as the Carla Ogden fax through the careful and relentless questioning of apologists by so-called "critics."
Well, I can't blame you. I love conspiracy theories, too. This board is full of them.
You apparently have no idea what constitutes a conspiracy theory, as often as you abuse the term. Correction: you have no problem misusing the term when it suits your deceptive purposes.
And how many "he said she said" levels are we going to regress to before you'll think critically about this?
As I said, and it bears repeating, I have no reason to distrust John Dehlin. I have little or no reason to trust you or Daniel Peterson. Sorry, but John has never lied to me. On the other hand, I have watched both you and Daniel deceive, so who am I going to believe here, a proven liar? Or the guy who actually has put his reputation, which is, for the record, proven to be reliable, on the line?
My critical thinking says that you came into this board lying, and that you continue to find any way you can to cloud the issue. You are a liar, a cheat, and a deceiver. If you think I don't like you, you would be right.
I withhold judgement until suitable evidence is presented. That is the difference between you and myself.
Another obvious lie. A person who is "withholding judgment" does not repeatedly call the claim "a conspiracy theory." You, as I said, are a shameless liar and a person of no integrity.
Temper, temper. Get a sense of humor.
I have a sense of humor. It just doesn't laugh off passive aggressive weasels who lie at the expense of my friends. If you are offended by that, you can shove it up your ass.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist