Rich's Website

[_Doctor Scratch]

Simon,

Your arguments on this thread have been terrible--completely devoid of nuance, substance, or evidence. It's shameful.

What recourse, in your view, do we have as LDS against critics and anti-Mormons?

For starters, you can rely on actual evidence and examples. Rich has said that his main goal is to prevent the sort of heartache that comes about after someone realizes that they haven't been given the full truth about the Church. Well, why not help out with that? As I recall, you yourself have admitted to really having your faith shaken. You said something to the effect that you needed SHIELDS to help fix your testimony.

Well, Simon, what can be done on the Mormon side of things to help prevent that sort of "Shaken Faith Syndrome"? Why not lobby for better education within the Church?

You don't like apologetics.

Some apologetics is fine. I disapprove of the nastier and more vindictive brand of it that I've dubbed "Mopologetics."

You don't like it when someone sticks up for their faith in the face of anti-Mormonism.

I don't think that Rich is an "anti-Mormon." I think it's kind of hard to fault someone who's just wants to prevent people from being hurt.

[_Simon Belmont]

Ah, so you did write the op?...are you really too stupid to answer a simple question?

No, I did not write the OP.

Try to follow along.

I posted in Rich's 1826 Glasslooking thread in Celestial. A moderator moved my post to this thread where it became the OP.

The words are mine, but they weren't part of any OP that I composed. They were part of a post that I composed.

again, try to follow along, mental-midget: I told Rich that he needs to focus on promoting his brand of Christianity and stop attacking other people's faith.

So you attacked his "faith"...got it, hypocrite....

It is clear that you are wholly unable to follow along in this very simple discussion.

Rich's faith is Christianity.
You said I attacked Rich's faith (and you've said it again).
So, please tell point out to me where I attacked Christianity. Put up or you owe me an apology.

Ah...so, apparently your reading comprehension is is as poor as your ability to grasp basic logic...so, I didn't say you were attacking "christianity"...thanks for the clarification...

Rich's faith is Christianity.
You said I attacked Rich's faith (and you've said it again).
So, please tell point out to me where I attacked Christianity. Put up or you owe me an apology.

If you can't grasp these simple concepts, there is not much more I can do to help you. I'm not infinitely patient.

[_Simon Belmont]

For starters, you can rely on actual evidence and examples. Rich has said that his main goal is to prevent the sort of heartache that comes about after someone realizes that they haven't been given the full truth about the Church.

But do people need to be spoon fed every last detail about something? It's up to me to investigate the world around me. It's not up to someone else.

Well, why not help out with that? As I recall, you yourself have admitted to really having your faith shaken. You said something to the effect that you needed SHIELDS to help fix your testimony.

My testimony wasn't ever "broken," and I don't recall having said that my faith had been shaken. I said I enjoyed SHIELDS for some good entertainment now and again.

Well, Simon, what can be done on the Mormon side of things to help prevent that sort of "Shaken Faith Syndrome"? Why not lobby for better education within the Church?

I don't know... I just don't think it's right to expect an organization (any organization) to spoon feed you everything you should know. Where is the self-discovery? Where is the ability to take charge of your own life? Are we sheeple?

Some apologetics is fine. I disapprove of the nastier and more vindictive brand of it that I've dubbed "Mopologetics."

And I disapprove of anti-Mormonism, anti-JWism, and anti-SDAism.

I don't think that Rich is an "anti-Mormon." I think it's kind of hard to fault someone who's just wants to prevent people from being hurt.

But Mormonism doesn't hurt anyone. Sure, people hurt themselves with unreal expectations, but who is at fault?

[_Jersey Girl]

Belmont,

How has Criddle attacked you?

By attacking my faith, of which I am a part.

How has he attacked your faith, Belmont?

Belmont,

Would you please answer my question?

[_Valorius]

Great Caesar's Ghost, man! Can't you tell the difference between
"completely ignorant"
and
"know very little"?

Were you raised on a pig farm, to just throw words out like slop without paying any attention where they go or what they mean?

You can argue every nuance of my writing that you wish, if that makes you happy.

This, from nit-picking Mr. "It's honey not sugar." Thanks, Sweetie.

I wish you would learn to say what you mean.
I'm certain your posts would be much better received.

[_rich kelsey]

In this thread my critic has tried to persuade me to remove five or six articles from my site — articles that I have invested huge amounts of effort and time in (basically my life’s work).

When I tried to reason with him logically he came back with words like, “so what?” Then, he questioned if I was “man enough...”

There was little effort on his part to show me where, in any of my articles, I had misrepresented LDS history. I had asked him to quote chapter and verse.

Only once did he do so, with his remarks claiming my summation was “slanted.” I had said:

“One thing is clear: Much of what came forth from Smith’s mouth could be construed as putting words in the mouth of a witness, and/or, helping the witness tell a pre-planned story.”

This was in response to this section of my work on page 11 of Those Mysterious Golden Plates:

In verse 1, someone is laying the groundwork to establish that,

“…Joseph Smith, Jun., [has] … got the plates...”

Yet, doesn’t it only make sense that if Smith had the plates, then Martin would not need to rely on faith to view them. Neither would God need to threaten Martin Harris with condemnation if he did not say,

(Verse 26) … “I have seen them...”

Also, if Smith had the plates, it sure seems odd that God would pressure Harris to say,

(Verse 26) “…they have been shown unto me by the power of God…”
One may wonder if it was God insisting:

(Verse 27) But if he [Martin] deny this he will break the covenant which he has before covenanted with me, and behold, he is condemned.”

( http://richkelsey.org/STORY%204.htm page 11 of Those Mysterious Golden Plates)

So, one reference to an article was made and the words, “Gee... that's not a slanted article at all” was given as criticism.

Now, I’m through. The critic had days to actually dialog with me before I stopped reading his posts. I have since gone back through this entire thread to see if the critic had any creative criticism to offer. I found none.

This man had an opportunity to make a difference in how I presented my views on Mormonism. He chose to waste not only my time, but all of the wonderful people’s time who also tried to reason with him.

This thread stands as a major embarrassment to the critic who had nothing positive to offer, whether he will ever see it that way or not!

I agree with Dr. Scratch:

“Simon,

Your arguments on this thread have been terrible--completely devoid of nuance, substance, or evidence. It's shameful.”

[_Valorius]

I have dealt with many obstinate Mormons in my life (and obstinate non-Mormons). It is rare that I find someone combining shamelessly unyielding obstinacy with such incompetence in discourse, as I have found in a certain person here. I must broaden my understanding and my capacity for patience.

[_rich kelsey]

I have dealt with many obstinate Mormons in my life (and obstinate non-Mormons). It is rare that I find someone combining shamelessly unyielding obstinacy with such incompetence in discourse, as I have found in a certain person here. I must broaden my understanding and my capacity for patience.

"Who was that masked man?" (rich kelsey)

If you ever run out of silver bullets I have a mold ready. I will send you a picture of it in a PM later today.

Also, when I said "Now, I’m through." I did not mean I'm through with this thread. I am through reading anything the critic writes. Because his words are not worth reading!

What is really odd is, my article on the SDA does not say one negative thing. It is under-construction and all I have is some historical information; basically an introduction. This is one of the articles the critic demanded I pull from my site!

I have a great deal of respect for William Miller. He apologized for leading 50 thousand people to believe Christ would return in 1844, after the Great Disappointment. I find that movement fascinating. I think we should learn from it.

My critic wants my article removed! I wonder if he bothered to read the work. And, at this point, I don’t care. The man has lost all credibility with me.

I may post that article but I need to cut some of the endnotes first. It is over documented, making it difficult to read. I need to finish the work but I am suffering from writers block. I swear I have spent three months and only produced about one paragraph, and it needs to be reworded.

[_Valorius]

I've never even written anything, Rich, yet I know what you are talking about. Sometimes a single paragraph can take, well, more time than a lot of people imagine.

You are right, of course, to just read the posts made by adults. I suppose Mormon DIscussions could add a new forum - The Pre-existence Forum - for the children to play in. But that wouldn't be right, when we are talking about a religion that puts such high value on family. Imagine every day on Mormon Discussions is Family Night. Just like every Family Night, we accommodate the children, trusting that by watching the examples of their elders, they will grow into mature, responsible young adults.

Anti-Mormons and Anti-Critics, some of them deserve each other. Both are driven by passion rather than intellect, and prejudice rather than objectivity. At least in their roles as antis. I know some people who have called themselves "anti-Mormons" but present pretty clear, factual cases about Mormonism, not just crazy, blind rants. I have also read Anti-Critics who address the Critics' concerns somewhat dispassionately and factually.

Greg Gutfeld has words for the type of people who would call your articles attacks.

[_rich kelsey]

...Greg Gutfeld has words for the type of people who would call your articles attacks.

And if you disagree with me, you hate Islam, gays and little bunnies?