>>853558
>That situation comes down to whose word you trust: Brother Dimond's or Steven Anderson's.
The video was included. "Brother Diamond" clearly twisted what "Pastor" Steve Anderson had said.
>I will admit that this was the weakest argument in the video against Steven Anderson, but that does not invalidate Brother Dimond's other many great points.
I'll take your word for that. I'm not going to watch two hours of that stuff because, in the end, Steve Anderson doesn't matter to me. Someone said in the comments that there was a summary towards the end so I went straight to that.
>Any clear examples of this?
there was a VC video where they were attacking Archbishop Lefebvre for being pro-Ecumenical. Lefebvre, who's courage saved the Latin Mass, said exactly the opposite of that in his book "Open Letter to Confused Catholics". The book VC was quoting was out of print so the context could not be found, but it was totally inconsistent with everything else Archbishop Lefebvre said.
When someone lies to me about other members of the Church, I tend to not listen to them because to listen to lies is dangerous. You may not be on your toes and be taken in by them.
Same with "Church Militant", who attacked the SSPX in Saint Mary's, Kansas because ONE woman accused ONE priest of sexual misconduct. For that they smeared the entire SSPX, which was totally unfair.
It smacks of a "destroy the Church from within" effort, "hi, I'm one of you but you won't believe what these priests are doing!!"