wenglund wrote:Are you at all familiar with the meaning of the word "if" in my statement above. It is intended to be non-accusatory, but conditional.
Even better, I am familiar with the methods of discourse you prefer. As I clearly demonstrated in my last post, your purpose is damage control.
One may reasonably view the tilte as a sweeping accusation against the Mormon Church for owning and operating a "forced-labor prison camp".
That would be an unreasonable assumption, especially in light of the many other statements on the website.
Like this:
www.mormongulag.com wrote:We are not - in any way and by any means - taking a stand or voicing an opinion on the beliefs or practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons).
If that doesn't suffice in documenting my conditional statement, take a few moments to brows the "Mormon Influence" section of your website.
Good to know. Hey, I found this on the "Mormon Influence" section of http://www.MormonGulag.com. Is this the website you were talking about?
"We are not - in any way and by any means - taking a stand or voicing an opinion on the beliefs or practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons).
In fact, we feel that the fundamental practices of the Utah Boys Ranch are diametrically opposed to the teachings of the founder of the Mormon church, Joseph Smith.
The 11th Article of Faith:
“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”
Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that current Church leaders have any knowledge of the abusive, unethical, and illegal operations of the Utah Boys Ranch. Rather, we believe the opposite. It is our hope that Church members will do what they can to help distance themselves from this place."
I suppose that the skittish or paranoid among us can let their imaginations take flights of fancy in conjecturing about my motives in posting on this thread, and ignore or dismiss my salient comments accordingly.
What an unkind and unChristlike thing to say, Brother Englund. Skittish, Paranoid?
What hyperbole, Brother Englund. Salient comments??!!
I will leave you to puzzle over the question: "If you are unwilling to thoughtfully listen to others and take them seriously, then can you reasonably expect that others will listen to you and tak you seriously?"
Rather than ponder ridiculous questions from those with ulterior motives, I'd rather ask you to puzzle over a question of my own. Do you really think I am stupid enough to buy the snake oil you're trying to sell me? Do you really think I am naïve enough to think you're here to help? Anyone born before Monday could see you poisoning the well and injecting doubt into this thread from a mile away.
We all know why you are here. It was confirmed by you ducking out and avoiding my comments after being called on it. And in case you are still wondering, I don't appreciate it.
You can't even keep from personally insulting me, and you don't even know anything about me.
Ponder that for a while, Brother Englund.
I'd like for you not to avoid this comment though, and show how us all how much integrity a defender of the faith has:
I challenge you to produce a single "sweeping accusation against the Church" from my website. Otherwise I expect you, as a gentlemen, to kindly retract that statement.