BTW, you again accuse me of not reading the material.
That is 7 times I have told you otherwise...
No, you are not dishonest, not at all.
You say you have read it yet you act as if there is no other explanation but yours. It leads me to wonder. Hardly dishonest. Presumptous perhaps.
Funny that the perpretators of all the anti-Mormon propaganda try to call out someone else as dishonest. The strawman arguments made alone are overwhelming. Again, all easily addressed at the links provided.
PD, allow me to exemplify a glaring example within this past week of what we're talking about here, dynamic-wise.
Post after post of yours, you give links to Lds sources, including Lds apologetics' sources. People -- Mormons and non-Mormons alike -- are suppose to go there and trust what is said there.
So, a fellow Mormon of yours, Reno232, who commented earlier on this thread, did exactly that on a recent Beck thread.
In this middle of this fairly nice exchange Reno was having with AMPU & Osage Orange, Reno says:
We have discussed this ad naseum before haven’t we Osage? I won’t spend the time here repeating the same argument that’s been given several times here other than to direct the lurker to: http://en.fairmormon.org/Adam-God for a brief explanation of the quote. The FACT is that this doctrine was never preached before the B.Y. quote, nor after. It never was LDS doctrine & certainly isn’t now, your & AMPU’s claim to the contrary not withstanding.
Source: 8/27 & 8/28 Glenn Beck Takes Another Bite Out of the Apple: The Meaning of Divine Destiny post #118
So, here we have a Mormon, going to one of your recommended Mormon sites, and trusting that what is said there was enough for him to conclude that Brigham Young -- after 1852 -- "never preached" the doctrine that Adam is God thereafter.
Well, if you go to that exchange source (post #200), I've given three Young quotes thereafter which shows Young continued to teach it for over 20 years!
Brigham Young, 1873: "How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me--namely that Adam is our father and God...Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here. He brought one of his wives with him, and she was called Eve...Our Father is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to alll his children who have or who ever will come upon the earth (David W. Evans, The Deseret News, June 18, 1873 under headline of "Discourse")
Now which is it, PD? (& Reno?) Are statements like what Reno made due to dishonesty? (I don't know his motives, so I don't know) Did Reno simply make a bad mistake, not intending to mislead? (Again, I don't know.)
What I do know is that if you P.D. are repeatedly endorsing FAIR on thread after thread after thread -- like you've done this one -- and then if your fellow Mormons are confident to make a conclusion that is quite false...then either the poster got it badly wrong, or the source was definitively misleading.
Given that the source Reno used (FAIR) highlighted only Young's 1852 source and somehow left off the 1873 source, I would have to give Reno the benefit of the doubt and say he didn't intend to mislead. He was led astray by Mormon apologists; apologists that both you and him are all too willing to endorse.
PD, you toss out spiritual endorsements like some local political gatekeeper. Perhaps you need to take a closer look at the lemons they are producing before you keep publishing your used car referral list!
The only explanation of anything is in the context of Truth. This isn't an election, this is something that can't be decided by committee. If a tree is felled by the ax of a lumberjack the only explanation of the tree's condition is that it was chopped down by that man. Coming along and saying beavers did it is an explanation, but not the correct one no matter how much you believe it or how hard you argue for it. Indeed arguing such whilst standing right in from of the exhausted lumberjack holding the ax with his foot on the tree itself rather absurd, but I am sure there would be those who would try if it suited their cause.
Still changes nothing.
Bring on your arguments and I'll demonstrate.