[Stourme]

[CommerceComet snarks]

        What say you Mormon defenders? You’re always quick to accuse the Anti-Mormons of distortion. Can I expect posts of outrage?

[Stourme makes sense]

Huh? Why would we make posts of outrage? There's nothing to see here.

This talk was given in 1984, that's before PCs were on every desktop. He probably even wrote it down by hand. It's the principal that's being taught that's important. Before it went into the Ensign he decided to simplify it some.

What's next, are you going to start deriding the New testament because there are 3 different accounts of Saul on the road to Damascus?

 

[CommerceComet]

Huh? Why would we make posts of outrage? There's nothing to see here.

Oh, sure.

This talk was given in 1984, that's before PCs were on every desktop. He probably even wrote it down by hand. It's the principal that's being taught that's important. Before it went into the Ensign he decided to simplify it some.

Before video recording equipment? Before audio recording equipment? Before transcripts? Give me a break. My point actually had to do with the selective outrage of the Mormon apologists. Even if the principle was the same, if a Mormon critic made such modifications, the Mormon apologists would scream bloody murder.

[MHGinTN]

It is curious that you try this post, as if you would defend the Bible having three different but not contradictory accounts of Saul on the way to Damascus. But approximately six hours later, you try to imply the Bible is not to be trusted because there are three different accounts, and you assert that they are contradictory accounts! [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2598634/posts?page=852#852]

Mormonism apologists are certainly a peculiar twisting and deceitful bunch. BTW, the three accounts are not at all contradictory, as two posters showed to you in response to your specious accusation regarding the Bible.