Farrell Should Be More Skeptical!!

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

<snip>


> TILL

> Did you notice that I pointed out that the guides were "admittedly Mormons"?

> I would think that you would have recognized that I was warning that this

> could be biased reporting of what happened.  On that subject, is it not true

> that Jerald and Sandra Tanner are ex-Mormons who have become zealous

> debunkers of Mormonism?  I seem to recall that they are.  If I am right,

> then some of the things that you have said about me (ex-preacher turned

> debunker of biblical inerrancy) should apply to the Tanners, shouldn't it?

> If not, why not?  In other words, if, as you have intimated at times, Till

> can't be trusted because he has an axe to grind, wouldn't the same principle

> apply to the Tanners?


Matthew Bell
Yes, I noticed you covered yourself by mentioning 'admittedly Mormons'. Did you
notice I said that you should be *more* skeptical?

I don't recall making any posts with regard to your former position, nor that
such would make you an untrustworthy source? 

You may also note that that the comments re: the manner of Joseph Smith's death
are independant of the Tanners, as they are citations from the churches own
history. 

Thanks
M.Bell

• Previous message: Farrell Should Be More Skeptical!!
• Next message: What's the deal with the gun?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]