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.
Now let's compare that to the source where Ronald P. Millett made his statement -
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.
For the record, we do not deny that there are other religious institutions that share our interpretation of the prophecy in Revelation 6:12-13, but that is irrelevant here. What matters is not religious difference, but your misrepresentation of our doctrines. Your post was not ambiguous, and you cannot fault me for interpreting it exactly as you presented it in that Facebook group. You wanted it to be “interesting,” didn’t you? Well, where has that brought you now?
Correcting misrepresentation is never an overreaction, it is a necessary response. If you misunderstood my motive in addressing your distorted view of our doctrine, then I strongly suggest you first learn what the INC truly teaches before attempting to mock our teachings again.
Now I understand the wisdom behind the Filipino saying: “𝘈𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴𝘥𝘢 𝘢𝘺 𝘯𝘢𝘩𝘶𝘩𝘶𝘭𝘪 𝘴𝘢 𝘴𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘭𝘪 𝘯𝘪𝘺𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘨” (a fish is usually caught by its own mouth).