Now we know they are all false prophets.

Same thing happened when SWK declared the Brigham Young Adam/god doctrine an "Abomination"
And Blood atonement, and almost every other commonly held to be scriptural doctrine of BY conveniently including the Brigham doctrine that Brigham's words and writings were scripture.

@LenHazell53 Yes, I happened to have read the very speech that BY gave on the Adam/God doctrine in the microfiche archives of the Harold B. Lee Library. He gave it to the Quorum of the Twelve in the Celestial Room of the St. George Temple and taught it as a doctrine that came "from on High". He was not expressing a speculative opinion. I've also read some of the old LDS hymnals that included blood atonement statements in the hymns the Mormans used to sing.

There are a whole lot of contradictions true blue Mormons have to wrap their heads around in order to stick with it. Somehow they manage.

@UpsideDownAgain Yes, it is called non-thinking blind faith.

@Heraclitus I'm not sure I would call it non-thinking. They seem to do a hell of a lot of thinking, talking, and testifying about it. But the gymnastics they use to wrangle their preferred answers out of the evidence is mind blowing. In some cases, I would think they would benefit from doing a little less thinking.

@UpsideDownAgain Well, all I can say is that your definition of thinking is different than mine. To me, weak rationalizations, parroted talking, and emotional blind faith testifying do not constitute real thinking but rather an escape from rational analysis. And I don't see how "less thinking" would be a benefit. What would you substitute for thinking that you think would benefit or help?

@Heraclitus Ineffective thinking is still thinking. When their thinking is focused on making everything fit their box, less of that would be good.