Thanks for stepping up to the plate and playing, but three strikes and you are out. Read carefully the text and then your responses. Your responses deal with general issues. In a case of where slander may be involved one needs to be able to go back to the actual source of the alleged slander. Not one of your links or references does that. They may or may not support the purpose of the slander (adding more “evidence” about the alleged “strangeness” of an LDS belief (Isn’t it a thrill to mock subjects that are based on faith! :)) but none of them shed light actual incidents where President Hinckley is alleged to have said something. The actual incident is important, because one of the easiest ways to produce a slanderous statement is to take something out of context.
Out of context? Guess what slugger? You’re up. Prove it. Don’t wiff......
Like I said in my qualifying statement.
It all depended on whether you would accept the sources or not.
Apparently, you chose not to.
Regardless, Hinkley is on record making the comments.
The church denies a family member’s account, as expected.
The prophets and apostles are on record making the “god was once a man, man can become a god” claims.
Simple facts that cannot be whitewashed away.
The “general issues” are; you accused a poster of slander, he did no such thing, since the comments can be attributed.
I rather enjoyed the “contextual argument”, since it’s SOP for mormon apologists to claim that anything a non-mormon, or in my case, an ex-mormon states or posts is “taken out of context” and therefore in error.
Thanks for not disappointing.
Here’s a question none of the others have been willing to answer; What qualifies as honest debate vs. being marginalized as an anti-mormon?
As to “mocking a faith”, I don’t need to do anything of the sort. The history, doctrines, tenets, rites, etc. are all the material a person needs.
Your accusation [slander], your burden of proof.
Batter up!