I Am a Child of God

Here Jose Rodelio Retome Rata made a clear statement as one of the excuse about Christ won't show to anyone since it is a question to Felix Manalo's authority and his self-proclaim that he was the Prophet or Sugo of the Last day, but he can't prove it. So Jose Rodelio Retome Rata made a scape plan to avoid the issue. The problem is; did the scripture really translate it that way or was it just he is using it without understanding the context? Let's find out -

Hebrews 10:10-13 King James Version
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

The teaching of the Bible Jesus ascended ONCE into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool.

Does Hebrews 10:10-13 said anything about his coming the second time? Or was it all about the atonement man to finish the works of the Law? Take note Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, we do believe and accept the teaching about Christ as the last sacrifice to end the laws, no question to it. But this has nothing to do of his second coming or even to continue the work of salvation and continues revelation. Seems like you don't know what scriptures you need to quote to justify Felix Manalo's self-proclaimed prophecy.

Acts 3:20-21 King James Version
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Jesus hasn't come down yet for the second time.

We understand you, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata; but this has nothing to do with your claim. This was all about the restitution of all things that will soon be fulfilled, we normally call it restoration. This is not all about the second coming issue, or rather the first vision issue, nothing at all. So to me, you just keep looking up random words just to make up something to help your Felix Manalo avoid the issue of his calling that he cannot sustain. Again, this is just a random Joke of your arrogant bigotry.

Hebrews 9:28 King James Version
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

The teaching of the LDS church from the made up fairy book of their prophet after Jesus resurrection he descended from heaven to the ancient America and ascended again into heaven.

And what this has to do with the claim that Christ Appears in Ancient America. And it seems like your word play game still lacks its ground to support it, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. Hebrews 9:29 is once again as understood clearly was his atonement for all right after he performs it, and we do believe he will come again the second time which is obviously we call Second Coming. And thinking that he came down to America as the second coming seems obviously a lunatic view of your poor brain. No one every saw Christ in America and since he appeared there so you are counting it as second coming? Seriously Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? Did your brain works that way?

You must understand Jose Rodelio Retome Rata that Christ did not just appeared once soon after his resurrection. He appeared multiple times and in different occasions. So was it all about his second coming? Of course not. But I guess you don't know that it happens in the Bible Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. I think that you just only read some lines and keep it as the perfect doctrine of your bigoted study of INC religion. That's not gonna work, Jose. Here's some of the list below, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata so you'll get to know your Bible -

John 20:14-18 - To Mary Magdalene.
Luke 24:13-35 - To two disciples on the road to Emmaus.
John 20:19-29 - To the apostles (twice, including Thomas).
1 Corinthians 15:5-8 - Appears to 500 at once.
Acts 7:55-56 - Stephen sees Jesus standing at God’s right hand (But let's consider this as Hallucination since your understanding about visions and revelation were just merely a dream)
Acts 9:3-6 - Appears to Paul on the road to Damascus (But let's consider this as Hallucination since your understanding about visions and revelation were just merely a dream)
Acts 22:17-21 - Appears again in the temple.
Revelation 1:12-18 - Appears to John (But let's consider this as Hallucination since your understanding about visions and revelation were just merely a dream)
Revelation 5 - Appears in heaven as the Lamb (But let's consider this as Hallucination since your understanding about visions and revelation were just merely a dream)

3 Nephi 11:8,12,21
8 And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him, and they durst not open their mouths, even one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was an angel that had appeared unto them.
12 And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words the whole multitude fell to the earth; for they remembered that it had been prophesied among them that Christ should show himself unto them after his ascension into heaven.
21 And the Lord said unto him: I give unto you power that ye shall baptize this people when I am again ascended into heaven.

This LDS church go against the teaching of the Bible.
No wonder why because their prophet was a false prophet trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.

Just when did this verse that you choose to pick up go against the teachings of the Bible. Go ahead and quote it, and let's discuss this one by one and let's go ahead and debate this as against Biblical records. Do you have any particular issue about this verses? It seems like you just want to keep doing that program the you promote such as copy paste program of Cherry-picking of your INC studio. Come on, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata! Go ahead and make a statement and lets get in to it if you may. You can ask one of your INC cohorts to act as moderator if you need it.

1 John 4:1 King James Version
4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Everyone can clearly see that Jose Rodelio Retome Rata; everyone knows what the verses was for. So do you apply that to your Philippine Prophet of the Far-East movement of Iglesia Ni Cristo? Did you understand how your Felix Manalo's self-proclaim as the prophet to restore the Philippine Religion? Do you know how many witnesses that can prove his claim as the prophet or Sugo of your Far East movement? Go ahead and educate us, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata.

Galatians 1:6-9 King James Version
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Again, this content was use over and over, so the question to you, Jose Rodelio Retome Rara; Do you know and understand the context? This has been explained to you over and over and yet you don't have any rebuttal on this subject. Still coward Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? Now to repeat my statement about this, you should look at your scripture that this has nothing to do with your so called another Gosple such as the Book of Mormon rather it has something to do with the Judaizers who tries to convert the Gentile like the Galatians saints to the Laws that they still observe in which Paul clearly states that it is no longer necessary, and yet some of them even the apostles still observe and follow the traditions which lead them to debate the matter as found in the Acts 15. And here you are still using the same old style of cherry-picking without knowing the context. Nice try, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, you still fail.

Check out this topic at -

Screenshot that he still posted in his wall
thinking this has something to do with Christ visit to America

BOOK OF MORMON VS BOOK OF MORMON!? - Sure ka Jose Rodelio Retome Rata?

Here we are in one of the Fun Fact that Jose Rodelio Retome Rata*** and thinking this has something to do about contradictions and of course, was it found in the Book of Mormon?

BOOK OF MORMON VS BOOK OF MORMON!

Abraham 4:3-5
3 And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.
4 And they (the Gods) comprehended the light, for it was bright; and they divided the light, or caused it to be divided, from the darkness.
5 And the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night. And it came to pass that from the evening until morning they called night; and from the morning until the evening they called day; and this was the first, or the beginning, of that which they called day and night.

Moses 1:6
6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.
Moses 2:3-5
3 And I, God, said: Let there be light; and there was light.
4 And I, God, saw the light; and that light was good. And I, God, divided the light from the darkness.
5 And I, God, called the light Day; and the darkness, I called Night; and this I did by the word of my power, and it was done as I spake; and the evening and the morning were the first day.

First of all, the Book of Mormon did not start with the seven (7) days creation that this Jose Rodelio Retome Rata*** wasn't aware about. This were not written in the Book of Mormon but rather in the Pearl of Great Price. This alone proves that he is brainless and only cherry-picks some stuff that he never study or understood the context.

To understand this misunderstood statement of Jose Rodelio Retome Rata***, let's go back to the basic Biblical Phrase at the very beginning of the Book that says this -

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. - Genesis 1:1

What's the actual Hebrew words that was written on it, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? To help you out on the answer to that question in which you don't know about, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, let's post it here -

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃

The word אֱלֹהִ֑ים (Elohim) was addressed as plural or in a plural form. Though most trinitarian suggest that this has something to do with the trinity, The Latter-day Saints view is different. And take note, the word הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם (heavens) was also in plural form. So what was this all about in LDS Theology? The use of the plural form is not related to the doctrine of the Trinity, cause LDS doesn't believe that; this Plurality simply understood as the council of God as stated in Psalm 82. The Monotheistic view states that this council were simple called judges, which is a direct contradiction of Christ statement (on John 10:34-36) addressing the Jews about his existence with the Father, and eventually one of the very reasons that leads to his crucifixion. So, the question would be; was Joseph Smith right in directly using the plural word of the translation of the Book of Abraham? He does, in a sense that they were compose of Councils of heavenly beings. So, obviously, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, is clueless of his criticism about the usage of the word.

Check out this post from Daniel McClellan on this topic - אלהים Does Not Mean “Judges” and Robert Boylan's Refuting Matthew Paulson on the use of "God of gods": Origen's Commentary on John

Jerry Nuñez Bustillo-Isn't it FUN FACT?

Yes it is, the Fun Fact here that you are Clueless and your study is merely just scratching the surface. Try to dig dipper Jose Rodelio Retome Rata to know more about your Bible. Thank you for taking it up

A false witness is punishable by God - by Jose Rodelio Retome Rata

And here we are again in one of Jose Rodelio Retome Rata's False Assumption and circular Reasoning. So let's dive in to see his claim -

A false witness is punishable by God.

Okay so which witness you are referring to, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata?

Proverbs 19:5 King James Version
5 A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape.
The punishment is the second death which is the lake of fire.
Revelation 21:8 King James Version
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

This is just a quote that you think might be the best stone to catch the bird Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. Question is can you prove it? And it the same stone will thrown to you, can you provide evidence of you claim witnesses on your Religion, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata?

The testimony of the LDS church the Bible and the book of Mormon are two witnesses.

Ok so we already have it so what your point again?

Exodus 14:16,21 King James Version
16 But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.
21 And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.

According to the Bible Moses lift up his rod and stretched out his hand over the sea and the waters were divided.

But according to the book of Mormon Moses spoke to the waters of the Red Sea and were divided.

1 Nephi 4:2
2 Therefore let us go up; let us be strong like unto Moses; for he truly spake unto the waters of the Red Sea and they divided hither and thither, and our fathers came through, out of captivity, on dry ground, and the armies of Pharaoh did follow and were drowned in the waters of the Red Sea.

Oh really, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata!? Just because the authors has different version of presenting the notion of the story, so you automatically conclude it is false? Is that So, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? Did you understand the context of each presentation Jose Rodelio Retome Rata?

We should understand the settings first before thinking something didn't happen just because of the limited account that has been recorded. Also, as I had said earlier, because of some limited text and phrases found in the bible, does it necessarily the only thing that happens that time, Jose Rodelio Retome Rate? Which I remember one time that you people try to excuse Felix authority to baptized, just because there is no record of John's Baptism? Really man!?

So why did Nephi say spake unto the waters? This is simply figurative or rhetorical language, which is common during their time in ancient Semitic-style speech. Nephi speech is not a direct quote, rather it's a motivational speech for his brethren and this doesn't directly applies at to what the exact scriptural quote did said about. You should remember Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, they don't have any record during that time and the only record was actually they are planning to obtain from someone who hold's it. So why would Nephi use a line by line quote while it isn't even the case of his address?

The book of Mormon contradicts the Bible.
The book of Mormon is a false witness.

So when did the Book of Mormon Contradict use a quote that doesn't even available during that time, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata?

From Jose Rodelio Retome Rata's Screenshot that I don't even know how he understood the context.

How did it Happened Facebook?

Does everyone experience this? This is actually the Facebook account of our company, and it seems like some unknown email had been put as one of the email contact. Why and How did it happened this way? Facebook might be not the best or trustworthy option in terms of Privacy. I think this is not a glitch or maybe a program error. I think Facebook has lost control over their system as to who access their personal information, but it's my opinion though.

Fun Fact Teachings of MINE - By Jose Rodelio Retome Rata

So here we go to one of Jose Rodelio Retome Rata's best assumptions and Critical Thinking of my very own Teaching (which I don't even know when I taught it). So let's dive in to his tiny brain -

Jerry Nuñez Bustillo-Here is another FUN FACT teaching of yours!
John 20:17 King James Version
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Screenshot from his post which I'm not even aware
on their discussion thinking I have the same opinion.

Okay, so what was this all about Jose Rodelio Retome RATA***? Which part there was my teaching that you think I have taught you Jose Rodelio Retome Rata***?

According to your teaching-in that instances Jesus has not yet resurrected while he was.
John 20:1,9,16-17 King James Version
1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.
16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Oh, really Jose Rodelio Retome Rata***? Tell me where's your proof that I teach it? And basing to someone opinion or claim generalizing it as my claim? Really Jose Rodelio Retome Rata***?

This logical fallacy simply calls Appeal to Anonymous Authority which closely related to argumentum ad verecundiam, this happens when someone like Jose Rodelio Retome Rata took the opinion of others that he is not even aware or certain to their belief or practices or maybe the content was cherry-picked , he then relates it as the general opinion or teaching of mine as he say that I teach. Which is more accurately basing his conclusion to opinions and not my actual views or my statement.

Seriously, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? Ganyan ka makipag discussion? Yung basta ka nalang humugot ng kung ano-ano tapos sabihin mo turo ko? Ngee! Hangang anong level lang ba ang kaya ng utak mo, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata***?

Jerry Nuñez Bustillo-Isn't it FUN FACT?
According to your teaching he was in spirit body that he has not yet received his perfected body while he has a body of flesh and bones which the spirit doesn't have.
Luke 24:1-9 King James Version
1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
3 And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
8 And they remembered his words,
9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Again, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, at wag kang magpaka-RATA***? Kailan ko ba sinabi na yan ay Accourding to "MY" teachings? Take me to the source where I said that Jose Rodelio Retome Rata***; can you provide a link about this so-called Fun Fact that I'd taught, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata***?

Jerry Nuñez Bustillo-Isn't it FUN FACT?
Matthew 28:1,5-9 King James Version
1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

Again Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? Where is your source that I taught this opinion that I don't even knew?

How can they hold Jesus if Jesus has no perfected body?
Jerry Nuñez Bustillo-Isn't it FUN FACT?

And again, you have no source and you don't even know which part was he talking to Jose Rodelio Retome Rata***. It was about the appearce of Christ with Mary Magdalene not the general story, Christ clearly states that she should not touch him. So the content goes on that she was instructed to tell his apostles about his appearance. So Accourding to your presentation, no one was able to touch him during that time he appears to Mary, but he was then eventually as his instruction to his apostles to touch him. Dito palang sa kento mo Jose Rodelio Retome Rata***, sabog sabog na, ngayon gumagawa ka pa ng kwento na turo ko. Edi WOW!

Gender Identity Issue by Jose Rodelio Retome Rata

Alright here we are in one of Jose Rodelio Retome Rata's Struggle of Believing the nature of God.

He now try to converse with Jeremy Brooks of which I'm not aware if he's an LDS, but he calls me out on his problem about God and his Body Parts. Seriously Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? Was this part of your dirty Childish thoughts. But yeah maybe, because You think of Penis were created to sin. Maybe it was created just to lust and seductions. Or maybe for satisfactions after sexual enter course. Was it in your mind now Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? Do you still love watching Pornos?

For your information, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata; LDS believe that sex are sacred, it is God-given gift for procreations of his spirit Children to experience Mortality and Gender Identity as Man and Woman was created to love and bond as one. That's why the Law of Chastity was given to protect and help us understand the importance of this Gift. But I think you don't have that kind of teachings in your INC Philippines Religion, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. So tell me, Why did God gave us Gender?

And to understand your question, I would suggest to Call your God a pronoun "She" if you don't like to call him Father since you don't like the idea that he is a male or masculine God literally not just a neuter. Do you call God that way, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? The scripture plainly states that we are the offspring of God, not just a mere creation -

28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. - Acts 17:28-29

And God also created as both male and female. So how did God came up to such idea when he created man in his own image and yet there were gender identity? What was this all about, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata?

If the God you talk about here is not a literal Father, then what is He, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? What is his Gender? And if you are a Male in this Mortal realm, what will you become right after you got into heaven, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? Can you provide an answer to this Questions, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata?

But there is more; the same question was also addressed to one of your INC women thinking on the same thing on this kind of ideology; and guess what was her answer on this question, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? Now check it on the link to see her answers -

https://bustillo-family.blogspot.com/2023/03/heavenly-mother.html

More Scripture Passage at -

Do we not all have one Father? Did not one God create us? Why then do we break faith with one another so as to profane the covenant of our fathers? - Malachi 2:10
Is this how you repay the LORD, O foolish and senseless people? Is He not your Father and Creator? Has He not made you and established you? - Deuteronomy 32:6
Know that the LORD is God. It is He who made us, and we are His; we are His people, and the sheep of His pasture. - Psalm 100:3

Also check out - https://bustillo-family.blogspot.com/2026/03/does-your-mother-god-and-father-god.html

Joseph Smith and his scribes wrote the fictional Book of Mormon

This is just another advertisement from Paul Gees and his Poorly Contructed Website attacking LDS doctrine and teachings. Problem was, this is just a Circular Reasoning and a False Dilemma. You should remember Paul Gee, The Bible can't back up it's claim since it was written down through Oral Traditions and witnesses were even questionable. Using such ideology seem to have been a downside on your knowledge about the scriptures.

Part 9 - ANSWERING JERRY BUSTILLO’S FLAWED REBUTTAL: Leonid Meteor subject - by Ginoong Pantas (ARGUMENTUM AD MARTYRIUM)

Now we're at the end of the season, we are now at Part 9 titled ARGUMENTUM AD MARTYRIUM, this will be the Season Finale, LOL! And it's gonna be fun taking some of Ginoong Pantas Notes on this one. We'll just go ahead without further ado. Color-code text as usual. Let's dive in -

“𝙃𝙤𝙬 𝙙𝙤 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙣𝙤 𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙢𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙋𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙝𝙚𝙘𝙮 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙚𝙙? 𝙔𝙤𝙪 𝙨𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙮 𝙨𝙖𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙟𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙮 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙛𝙖𝙡𝙨𝙚 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤 𝙨𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙨 𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙡 𝙙𝙤𝙘𝙪𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙈𝙞𝙣𝙪𝙩𝙚𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙈𝙚𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜. 𝙎𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙤𝙪𝙨𝙡𝙮? 𝘿𝙤 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙙𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨? 𝘼𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩? 𝙔𝙤𝙪 𝙘𝙖𝙣’𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙖 𝙝𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙗𝙖𝙘𝙠𝙜𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢 𝙁𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙭 𝙈𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙤 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙨𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢 𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙛𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙝𝙞𝙢, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙮𝙚𝙩 𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙬𝙧𝙤𝙩𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙟𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙡𝙮 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙨 𝙞𝙩 𝙝𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙨𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙮 𝙛𝙖𝙡𝙨𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙨 𝙤𝙧 𝙖 𝙢𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙪𝙥 𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙨. 𝘾𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙤𝙣! 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙙𝙤 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙠 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙙𝙞𝙚 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙛𝙖𝙡𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙤𝙣𝙞𝙚𝙨 𝙨𝙖𝙠𝙚?”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: Here we go again… you’re asking me how I know there were no sermons or records from 1833 mentioning Joseph Smith’s alleged prophecy? The answer is simple: because NONE EXIST. There is no contemporary documentation, no diary entry, no sermon manuscript, no witness account written at the time of the Leonid Meteor Shower. What we have are recollections written decades later, long after memory has been reshaped by belief and loyalty. Historians do not dismiss these accounts out of bias; they treat them with caution precisely because they are retrospective, not contemporary evidence.

And here we go with your Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Oh, sure, do you want me to use the same statement on your belief? Then tell me, was there any firsthand account from Felix Manalo himself, or a diary entry, sermon entry, or recording from his mouth about his 3 days of fasting or study? Do you have any witnesses to this account? If so, then prove it. Retrospective right, Ginoong Pantas? Again, if you throw up a statement, be sure you have to back it up. This might be a Tu Quoque and yet reasonable enough; while you brought it up, and since you don't accept the account of the witnesses, then go ahead and provide evidence on your side of the doctrine.

And as for your appeal to martyrdom, dying for a testimony does not automatically make that testimony historically reliable. People across religions and ideologies have died for convictions that later proved mistaken or unverifiable. The question is not whether someone believed strongly enough to suffer for it, but whether the claim itself can be substantiated by evidence. In this case, without contemporary proof, the narrative collapses into later storytelling, passionate, yes, but historically fragile.

And how do you know that they lie? That's the only question that you should/must have a ground for; of course, that same question would satisfy Felix Manalo's excuses. Okay, then let's do that. If you can provide honest evidence, then the case is closed. The same thing goes with Felix Manalo's witness; you have none, but of course, I couldn't find evidence about it, so why would I question that, right, Ginoong Pantas? Let's be clear here, Ginoong Pantas; just where did you get that idea of irrational questioning?

“𝘼𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢 𝙗𝙧𝙤? 𝘿𝙤 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙖𝙛𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙞𝙩 𝙝𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙣? 𝘾𝙖𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙙 𝙢𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙬𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙛𝙮 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢? 𝙄𝙩 𝙨𝙚𝙚𝙢𝙨 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙬𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙚𝙙𝙪𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙢𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙜𝙤 𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙙𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙡𝙮 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙝𝙮𝙥𝙤𝙘𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙚 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙩.”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: Come on, Jerry… that is precisely the point: NO SUCH EVIDENCE EXISTS. There are no contemporary sermons, no diary entries, no documented witness accounts from that year that record him predicting the Leonid Meteor Shower beforehand. What surfaces instead are recollections written decades later, shaped by memory and loyalty, which historians rightly treat with caution. To dismiss the absence of records as “false” simply because there are no minutes of meeting is not scholarship, it is speculation. I hate to repeat this all over again, my friend.

And I have proven my point, and you can't provide any evidence, so what gives, Ginoong Pantas? What's with the nonsense talk, Ginoong Pantas? You opened up a statement where you can't find any evidence that it is false. Nice strategy you got there. And just because there are no minutes of meetings, you then appeal to Ignorance on a Genetic Fallacy. Come on, Ginoong Pantas! Try to remember this, Ginoong Pantas: "The Absence of Evidence is not the Evidence of Absence."

And as for your attempt to deflect by questioning Brother Felix Manalo’s divine mission, that is a separate matter entirely. The INC’s doctrines are grounded in Scripture and in the fulfillment of prophecy, not in retrospective storytelling.

Yeah, of course, it's a separate matter where you can't clearly point out the solution to the issue. Is it wrong, Ginoong Pantas? And let's use your ideology on that part. Can you prove the Retrospective Storytelling of Manalo's preparation for ministry grounded in divine mission? Do you have evidence on that, or more accurately, as always, you will appeal to a Biblical Eisegesis? You can't, 'cause you don't have evidence, right, Ginoong Pantas?

The issue here is not whether people believed strongly enough to write journals or even die for their convictions, but whether the claim itself can be substantiated by evidence. Without contemporary proof, your narrative remains fragile, passionate perhaps, but historically unverified.

Then, why are you asking it in the first place? Why would you think of finding a source such as a personal journal (where they actually have one), a sermon, or whatever came to mind on such a borrowed argument from old trash critics? And if you want evidence, it was already there. The only problem was, you won't accept it, of course, because Manalo wasn't involved, right, Ginoong Pantas? And how do you know it's unverified? Maybe because there was no computer Technology at that time, am I right, Ginoong Pantas? So it will always be unverified, right, Ginoong Pantas? Then can you verify your Doctrine of Manalo? Oh, wait! I get it, it's a different topic, right? LOL!

“𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙟𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙖𝙞𝙙 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙘𝙝𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙝 𝙝𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙮 𝙬𝙚𝙗𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙚, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙩 𝙨𝙚𝙚𝙢 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙙𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖 𝙘𝙤𝙘𝙠-𝙖𝙣𝙙-𝙗𝙪𝙡𝙡 𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙘𝙖𝙣’𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙖 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚. 𝙎𝙤, 𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚’𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙠 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙟𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙘𝙝𝙚𝙘𝙠 𝙞𝙩 𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚. 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙗𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙫𝙚 𝙢𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙬𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙚 𝙖 𝙟𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙖𝙢𝙚 𝙖𝙢𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙙𝙖𝙮 𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙞𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙠 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙫𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙧 𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙩𝙤 𝙮𝙤𝙪. 𝙎𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙚𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙧𝙙 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙚. 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨. 𝙄’𝙙 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙬𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙟𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩’𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙚, 𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙖𝙣 𝙣𝙜𝙖 𝙡𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙥𝙖𝙨 𝙣𝙖 𝙣𝙜 𝟯 𝙤𝙧 𝟱 𝙖𝙧𝙖𝙬 𝙗𝙖𝙜𝙤 𝙢𝙤 𝙥𝙖 𝙢𝙖𝙨𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙩. 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝘼𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪’𝙧𝙚 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙙𝙤𝙣’𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙙𝙤.”

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-from-edward-partridge-between-14-and-19-november-1833/1?highlight=1833%20meteor

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: The real issue is whether Joseph Smith truly predicted the Leonid Meteor Shower of November 13, 1833 AT THAT TIME, with evidence from his own words or contemporary records. Unlike Joseph, son of Jacob, who foretold Egypt’s seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine and whose prophecy was preserved in Scripture, Smith’s alleged prediction lacks such immediate documentation. Even the journal you cited carries a stain of uncertainty: the date itself is illegible due to a tear, leaving scholars to guess whether it was written on the 14th, 17th, or 19th of November. The language of Partridge’s letter even suggests it was drafted after the event, not during it.

WOW! Just WOW! So, tell me, Ginoong Pantas, who wrote the story of Joseph in Egypt and the rest of the 7 years of Plenty and Famine Story? Do you have the first-hand account of the people who were there who witnessed the event, or the author themselves who wrote it as if it was the first hand account? So, who authored the book, and just when was the story written by the author? Do you know the year gap between the author's writing and the event, Ginoong Pantas? Now go ahead and make a comparison, then tell me the difference. You have time to research. I won't bother responding to the commentary above; just provide me with the evidence you have now on your claim.

So how can this be relied upon as proof? Anyone can claim witnesses were present, but none of those supposed witnesses recorded the prophecy beforehand. Contrast this with groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who (despite their failed “end of the world” predictions) at least produced written records before the dates they proclaimed. Joseph Smith, by comparison, left NO contemporary evidence of his alleged prophecy. What remains are retrospective narratives, fragile and historically suspect.

Oh sure, let's assume it wasn't. So tell me the Example you got there; How can it be relied upon as proof? Yeah, right, why didn't they record the prophecy? Then try asking that same thing about your religion, and you will get a funny response. Yea yea, sure you said it already, so I'll be waiting for you to respond to the questions I ask about your part of the story. So provide me at least 1 (one) witness that will prove Felix Manalo was called of God and that he has a first-hand account of his testimony, and we're done. Go ahead, Ginoong Pantas.

𝘛𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘦𝘥…

Oh wait! Was there More of this, Ginoong Pantas?

Coming up Next - Part 10 Screenshot Bonus only here at http://bit.ly/GPantas

Part 8 - ANSWERING JERRY BUSTILLO’S FLAWED REBUTTAL: Leonid Meteor subject - by Ginoong Pantas (ON JOSEPH SMITH’S PREDICTION)

We are now on our Part 8 of this episode titled "ON JOSEPH SMITH’S PREDICTION" It's kinda interesting of the claim he got here while thinking this couldn't be applied in their ideology and even in Biblical sense. Let's find out why Ginoong Pantas use a Bad analogy of his excuses and lets challenge him to do the same thing on his religion. The color coding as is, so let's dive in -

“𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙡𝙤𝙤𝙠 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙬𝙚 𝙜𝙤𝙩 𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚? 𝘽𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙩’𝙨 𝙖 𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙧 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙖𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙪𝙥 𝙣𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙨 𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚 𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙣 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙚. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙡𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙜𝙤𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙩 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙡𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙮 𝙜𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙞𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙄𝙉𝘾 𝙘𝙞𝙧𝙘𝙡𝙚, 𝙨𝙤 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙥 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙣 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙦𝙪𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚 𝙖𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧. 𝙒𝙚 𝙙𝙤 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙤𝙬𝙣 𝙗𝙞𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙨, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙠 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙠 𝙤𝙣 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙨𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙮 𝙢𝙖𝙠𝙚𝙨 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙞𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡. 𝘽𝙪𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙮𝙬𝙖𝙮, 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙠 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙖𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙢𝙖𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙬𝙚𝙖𝙠 𝙨𝙤 𝙄 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙘𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙡𝙮 𝙨𝙚𝙚 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙞𝙡𝙮 𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙪𝙥 𝙩𝙤 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙪𝙣𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙣𝙤 𝙜𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙤𝙬𝙣.”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: Obviously, I only quoted a few sources to keep the article concise, except now that I’ve had to arrange everything more fully in response to your blog rebuttal. But did the facts change? Not at all. It remains true that there is no known written record from 1833 itself. No diary entry from Joseph Smith predicting it beforehand. No documented sermon from that time mentioning such a prophecy. No contemporary witness account recorded at the moment it supposedly happened.

Now you are telling us that the source you borrow were more factual because you dig it on the right one. That's good! Seem like you're simply saying that it's okay to quote outside of you Pasugo Official Doctrine or Site. And what did we got on you research Ginoong Pantas? Did you accurately got the more precise detail of your claim? Did you or did you just cherry-pick the good parts which you do most of the time. Tell me more about it Ginoong Pantas. Tell me about the Diary of Felix Manalo where he state clearly states that he was the sugo and that Isaiah ravenous bird was him? Of course you can't, because he never declared that right after but rather it was only develop by overtime. See the problem here Ginoong Pantas. You want Joseph Smith hand written account rather that the known people who witness the event, at yet you can't even provide a detail of your so-called sugo that he wrote an account of his calling. So you're saying here that every witness during that time even if they were antagonist were all liars, was it on your mind now Ginoong Pantas?

The account of Philo Dibbles who was not a member that time were even have witness name John Hancock. Why would Philo Dibbles lie while he is not a member that time and was witnessed by John Hancock? What kind of thinking would that be, Ginoong Pantas?

What exists instead are retrospective accounts, narratives written long after the event, the very kind of material historians approach with caution. In other words, the foundation of your claim rests not on contemporary evidence but on later storytelling, which is inherently suspect. More on that as we proceed.

And how do you know it was just a simple story telling? Can you also help us understand Felix Manalo's Story telling that he claimed to be the so-called SUGO even if there were no evidence of his claimed, Ginoong Pantas? You see, every time you use this kind of analogy, it applies even in your circle, and the sad part is, we have ample of evidence to prove while you have zero. See where you fail on that kind of mindset, Ginoong Pantas? You just want to address an issue where even problematic on your side. And by the way as I have given you example the last time, it could also be applied biblically.

“𝘿𝙞𝙙 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙡𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙍𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙙 𝙋. 𝙈𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙩𝙩'𝙨 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩, 𝙤𝙧 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙨𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙥𝙮-𝙥𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙢𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙨 𝙖𝙬𝙚𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚?”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: From the online source I presented? Of course I did! Why? Do you really expect me to copy and paste the entire article instead of citing only the most relevant portion that directly aligns with our discussion? That would be impractical, space-consuming and unnecessarily lengthy. The real issue here is not whether I read the whole piece (which I did), nor whether I pasted it in full. The real issue is why you failed to verify or validate the accuracy of the citation itself.

That simple question alone show how you misunderstood the statement of Ronald P. Millett and yet you quoted his words as if it was a hoax. What about let's put some of Ronal Millett's side of the story rather that cherry-pick the idea that mislead and misunderstood. So let's go ahead.

From https://www.grunge.com/1189849/the-1833-meteor-shower-led-many-to-both-scientific-and-religious-understanding/ the Ginoong Pantas Quoted. See my Previous Response at https://bustillo-family.blogspot.com/2026/04/a-responding-ginoong-pantas-their-fun.html

Now let's compare that to the source where Ronald P. Millett made his statement -

Source from https://latterdaysaintmag.com/1833-meteor-storm-a-precisely-synchronized-sign-and-wonder/

So, what this got in to you, Ginoong Pantas? This simply shows your cherry picking doesn't work, Ginoong Pantas and it seems like you love quoting on a source that will criticized the LDS by default. Now tell me, was it how you meant go to the right source of your website while you yourself will just find fault? Good to know, Ginoong Pantas. It's a perfect example that I should always use your official Website to go along with your doctrine, LOL!

That is where the discussion should have gone deeper (into the truth of the content) rather than nitpicking over whether I reproduced the article word for word. That’s simply not how meaningful discourse works, my friend.

Yeah sure, I can see that, so the discussion end with your words against yours. Thank you for showing it up. Now it's more meaningful discourse, Ginoong Pantas.

“𝙊𝙠𝙖𝙮 𝙨𝙤, 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙩𝙧𝙮𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙥𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙋𝙝𝙞𝙡𝙤 𝘿𝙞𝙗𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙚𝙢𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙙𝙪𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙩. 𝙏𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙤𝙬𝙣 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙙𝙨 𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙣 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙖 𝙢𝙚𝙢𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙝𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙝𝙞𝙢. 𝙋𝙝𝙞𝙡𝙤 𝘿𝙞𝙗𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨𝙣'𝙩 𝙖 𝙢𝙚𝙢𝙗𝙚𝙧 𝙙𝙪𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙚 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙨𝙠𝙚𝙥𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙝𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙝, 𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙧𝙤𝙩𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙤𝙘𝙘𝙪𝙧 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙙 𝙙𝙪𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙅𝙤𝙨𝙚𝙥𝙝 𝙎𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙝'𝙨 𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙢𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙅𝙤𝙨𝙚𝙥𝙝 𝙃𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙤𝙘𝙠 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙝𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙖𝙨𝙩 𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙪𝙩𝙚 𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙝𝙞𝙢 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙛𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙨 𝙝𝙚 𝙠𝙚𝙚𝙥 𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙚𝙭𝙖𝙘𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙩.”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: Fine, let’s concede that Philo Dibble was not yet a member of the LDS Church in 1833. But you know very well that he was the earliest source of the story about Joseph Smith’s alleged prediction of the Leonid Meteor Shower, only after he published his 𝘙𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘵 𝘑𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘩 𝘚𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘩 in 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘑𝘶𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳 XXVII No. 1 (1892), decades later, when he was already a committed member of the Latter‑day Saint movement.

So, your idea here was that he became a member just to lie, am I right Ginoong Pantas? And again, when everytime you made an attempt on this kind of bad ideology, it can be easily applies to your standard. The question here is do you have a credible source of any claim if it will be thrown back to you, Ginoong Pantas? You can easily make a statement and copy a direct know criticisms from a source that you don't even know is credible and yet it turns out it will cost too much damage on the side of your ideology and teaching. You don't have any proof so ano pinaglalaban mo dito, Ginoong Pantas?

The rest of your narratives are not historically grounded. They are nothing more than retrospective tales, written long after the event, and precisely the kind of material historians treat with skepticism. In short, what you present is not contemporary evidence but later embellishment, stories shaped decades after the fact, not proof from the time itself. It’s sad but it’s true.

So what do you want the witness to do, Ginoong Pantas? Ang gusto mong mang yari dapat sinulat na nila na nangyari kahit di pa mangyari, tama ba Ginoong Pantas? Of course, lahat naman ng event right after it was happen dun mo lang naman pa maisipang isulat. Nagiisip ka ba Ginoong Pantas? And again if you appeal to this Genetic Fallacy, it is a bad idea while historically they are already doing it even in your Manalo the Philippine Sugo. I don't think you can provide any reliable evidence kung pasukin natin usapin yan, while here we are talking about the real witness who knows and experience the exact event. Sino sa palagay mo nagasasabi ng totoo kung ikumpara natin yan sa witnesses nyo?

“𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙩𝙖𝙪𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙗𝙮 𝙅𝙤𝙨𝙚𝙥𝙝, 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙬𝙤 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙙𝙪𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙋𝙝𝙞𝙡𝙤 𝙉𝙞𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙖 𝙢𝙚𝙢𝙗𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙙𝙨 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙙𝙪𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚. 𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙡 𝙢𝙚 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙙𝙤 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙨𝙚 𝙙𝙖𝙮𝙨 𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙗𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙫𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙛𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙂𝙤𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙡 𝙬𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙣 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙉𝙚𝙬 𝙏𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙖𝙪𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙗𝙮 𝙈𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙬, 𝙈𝙖𝙧𝙠, 𝙇𝙪𝙠𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙅𝙤𝙝𝙣 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙬𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙣 𝙨𝙤𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙛𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙨 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙡𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙜𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢𝙚𝙙 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙗𝙮 𝙨𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙖𝙧𝙨. 𝙄𝙩 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙥𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙙𝙤𝙬𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙊𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙏𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣, 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙄 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙠 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙤𝙧 𝙢𝙖𝙮𝙗𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙗𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙫𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙡, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙚 𝙖𝙪𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙧 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 4 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬𝙣 𝙂𝙤𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙡𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝘼𝙣𝙤𝙣𝙮𝙢𝙤𝙪𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙮𝙚𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮𝙤𝙣𝙚, 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙢𝙚, 𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙗𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙫𝙚 𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙥𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙙𝙤𝙬𝙣 𝙗𝙮 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙣𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙤𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙙𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣. 𝙔𝙤𝙪 𝙣𝙚𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙚 𝙝𝙤𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙩 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨; 𝘿𝙞𝙙 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙠 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙂𝙞𝙣𝙤𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙋𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙨?”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: I already anticipated that question. This actually makes me wonder. You claim that Joseph Smith’s words were witnessed by many, yet the problem remains: there is no contemporary record from 1833 itself, no diary entry, no sermon, no written testimony at the time of the Leonid Meteor Shower. What we have instead (I’ll say this again) are retrospective accounts, written decades later, precisely the kind of material historians treat with caution. Philo Dibble’s recollection in 1892, long after he had become a committed Latter‑day Saint, is not the same as evidence from the moment itself.

Oh really? Which part, Ginoong Pantas? Just when did you address the issue that the theme of your problematic ideas of finding a good journal entry and problematic false witness of Biblical writings has been addressed by which one again? You? And it seems like you just stick your butt to just one chair that couldn't even sustain the weight of your problem? Take me back where you address it and let's try to analyze it again, maybe I was wrong? Or, more accurately, maybe you don't have the idea of my statement. Again, Ginoong Pantas, if you want to throw that on this commentary, just be sure you have credibility if I throw it back. So far you don't have a clue on this simple statement rather just going to and fro alibis of Genetic Fallacy.

And comparing this to the Gospels only undermines your point. Why so? Well, the authority of Scripture rests on divine inspiration and canonical recognition, not on retrospective anecdotes about meteor showers. To equate Dibble’s late recollection with the foundation of the New Testament is a false analogy. The issue here is not whether oral tradition exists, but whether your claim about Joseph Smith’s prediction has any historical grounding. Without contemporary proof, it collapses into later storytelling, and that is not doctrine, but SPECULATION.

And why not? You question the credibility of the witnesses, so why not question the same thing to the standard ideology that you have now? Can you provide an answer to my question, Ginoong Pantas? Yes, I do believe the scriptures is of God written by fallible men who receive guidance and inspiration, no question about it. But we are not talking about it, Ginoong Pantas. We are talking about How do you reconcile to that Genetic Fallacy that you presented which is about 25-30% written anonymously with a problematic eye witnesses, which is even found in the standard 4 Gospel. Then here you are questioning the Credibility of the eyewitness who were present during the event; just because it was written later? Oh come on! Try to ask that on your Felix Manalo if he has a written testimony of eyewitnesses of his Proclamation as the Sugo and God did talk to him. Can you provide me that thing, Ginoong Pantas? But yea, back to the Topic. I have already stablish my point that you arrogantly misinterpret my Presentation of the Fun Fact which is not even a mock on your religion.

Coming up Next: Part 9 ARGUMENTUM AD MARTYRIUM only here at http://bit.ly/GPantas

Google Verification Code to restore Email Password: How?

Google, tell me, how will it work?

Family Tree Frame - For FamilySearch and Personal Use

Design taken from FamilySearch for Picture Frames or Family Blog Design. You may download the Frame below. Limited Frame of 7 pictures. You may just add on your own if you need more frames.

1254x1254 in White Background

4950x4950 in Transparent Background

Part 7 - ANSWERING JERRY BUSTILLO’S FLAWED REBUTTAL: Leonid Meteor subject - by Ginoong Pantas (IMMATURE AND INDECENT APPROACH?)

Alright we are now on our next episode of ANSWERING JERRY BUSTILLO’S FLAWED REBUTTAL and we are on the Part 7 titled "IMMATURE AND INDECENT APPROACH?" So without further adeu lets get to it so we could finish this episode as quick as we could since Ginoong Pantas has other objective in dealing with the Mormons. Let's dive in -

“𝙄𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙖𝙞𝙢 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙖 𝙜𝙤𝙤𝙙 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙘𝙪𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙚𝙖𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜, 𝙄’𝙢 𝙜𝙤𝙤𝙙 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙞𝙩. 𝙔𝙤𝙪 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙜𝙤 𝙖𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙙 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙜𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙥 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙖 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙘𝙪𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣. 𝙄 𝙙𝙤𝙣’𝙩 𝙣𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙙𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙮 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙡𝙮, 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙄 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙠𝙨 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙨𝙤 𝙞𝙢𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙣𝙩.”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: You actually failed to validate your claim (and misrepresentation of our doctrine) from the very start, yet you boast about being skilled in engaging with “verified teaching”? That is nothing but internal hypocrisy. And another thing: why are you so afraid of me posting this publicly on my timeline? Explain to me how that is “immature” or “indecent.” Is that really how Facebook timelines were designed by Meta?

Why would I validate my claim on just your side of your story, Ginoong Pantas? And how was my claim contradict on your INC doctrine? Who do you think is hypocrite here, Ginoong Pantas? The one that is just neutral or your style of just having your own religious teachings to be acknowledge? Why would I care digging on your website and find a good solution just to fix the problem of Leonid Meteor Shower and Brother Felix Manalo? Why would I do that? You want an explanation of why I don't normally post on a public just to show off my very own handiworks of a Professional Debater, or should I say the Magnum Opus of a Scripture Savvy Nerdo, was it that you're thinking, Ginoong Pantas? Why would I need to brag myself and level down my standards on such a stupid childish game of hate and bigotry? Tell me, why would I join you? What's your best outstanding professional approach to convince me to get in to your level?

NO. I chose to bring this matter to public attention on my timeline precisely for proper awareness and scrutiny, before your post in that group MISLEADS others through its blatant misrepresentation of our teachings. As simple as that!

I never mislead someone from your INC company of any of your teachings. I may post something that contradicts but it is not misleading rather a response to some of your arrogant cohorts. If you want it on the public, Go ahead, Do you think I do care? As long as you keep the entire conversation and the transparency to the public then go. Also always keep that in mind that I never posted something that mislead you and others on the group. Go ahead and take all my post in the group and have a case study, how, when and why I posted something on Facebook opposed on your INC view. Everything was there and lets deal with it.