JR, many foolish and immature readers believe their emotions are evidence of whatever "truth" they wish to validate. Thus any evidence that contradicts their feelings is "evil" and "anti". They must degrade subjectively the writer, the source, and the material, because if they objectively evaluate the evidence, they may very well be logically forced to change their mind.

No cause or religion has anything to fear from the truth if their cause is just. The true anti's then are those who fear objective evaluation, individuals like Dubss and Decaf, for instance.

Wren wrote:
JR, many foolish and immature readers believe their emotions are evidence of whatever "truth" they wish to validate. Thus any evidence that contradicts their feelings is "evil" and "anti". They must degrade subjectively the writer, the source, and the material, because if they objectively evaluate the evidence, they may very well be logically forced to change their mind.

No cause or religion has anything to fear from the truth if their cause is just. The true anti's then are those who fear objective evaluation, individuals like Dubss and Decaf, for instance.

I like truth, truth is what I have, of course I question sources and references, I don't automatically believe them because they are in print, as some here do.

Dubss writes, "I like truth, truth is what I have, of course I question sources and references, I don't automatically believe them because they are in print, as some here do."

Because you are talking calmly, politely, and rationally, I can respond do you.

You have every right to believe what you do. However, when you insist that it is the only truth, everyone else has the right to make you produce your evidence and examine it to the smallest detail.

Your great error, I think, is that you mistake "con" with "anti". The Brittanica was not anti source, yet you treated it as one because it disagreed with your beliefs.

You projected your characteristics of "sloppiness" and "opinion" onto the Brittanica.

No one cares what you believe. It is unimportant to me, for instance. But when you make claims that are supposedly objective, we are going to investigate your evidence to the smallest degree.

The thing you don't get is I never said people didn't die in the days of early saints, possibly by the hands of religious zealot extremists that still exist even today in some form or another, in every religion has a few of them. I just don't think it was as widespread as some here make it out to be, as we saw by taking days to find ONE name as your "proof". And even if it were true, it was a few religious exremist nut jobs that mistood doctrine and acted foolishly. Doesn't make the rest of the doctrine nor the church of Jesus Christ any less truthful.

That is sensible writing. Every group has wing nuts. MMM is not, as terrible as it was, the issue as much as it was the doctrine of blood atonement that drove it. That doctrine was taught from the pulpit by Brigham and others. Evidence has been offered here how it influenced the authorities in the Cedar City Stake. Circumstanial evidence has been offered here that Apostle George A. Smith visited with "instructions" to the local brethren to do dastardly with the immigrant wagon trains. And so on and so forth. The question is then, "Would the 'one true church' have a leadership that created the atmosphere for massacre and even ordered it?"

Looking at all the evidence --whether it is factual and fits the facts, not whether it is "pro" or "con" --is what the sincere investigator does.

Dubss wrote:
The thing you don't get is I never said people didn't die in the days of early saints, possibly by the hands of religious zealot extremists that still exist even today in some form or another, in every religion has a few of them. I just don't think it was as widespread as some here make it out to be, as we saw by taking days to find ONE name as your "proof". And even if it were true, it was a few religious exremist nut jobs that mistood doctrine and acted foolishly. Doesn't make the rest of the doctrine nor the church of Jesus Christ any less truthful.
As Wren said, that is sensible. Why don't you post like this all the time. Usually, you just rant and throw out personal attacks. Then, when some proof is provided to you, you calm down and post a rational thought. Why? Just be rational from the beginning. I don't think anyone said it was "widespread". Not that I remember, anyway.