I don't see how one can. I'd say suggest that calling something an "abomination" and "corrupt" is pretty high on the scale of ridiculing. No?
It’s one way of saying that the churches of the day were all the result of an apostasy which had occurred over time. But ridicule? No. Just stating the facts. What Joseph Smith went on to say is that even though the religious systems were doctrinally corrupted, they still had the right to worship how they pleased.
It’s one way of saying that the churches of the day were all the result of an apostasy which had occurred over time. But ridicule? No. Just stating the facts. What Joseph Smith went on to say is that even though the religious systems were doctrinally corrupted, they still had the right to worship how they pleased.
It’s one way of saying that the churches of the day were all the result of an apostasy which had occurred over time. But ridicule? No. Just stating the facts. What Joseph Smith went on to say is that even though the religious systems were doctrinally corrupted, they still had the right to worship how they pleased.
Re,
MG
Gee, I wonder where MG gets the notion that ‘spittin’ facts’ isn’t ridicule?
Consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft fall at once from his neck, and his eyes are opened to see the truth, and truth greatly prevails over priestcraft ...
-_-
Donald Trump doesn’t know who is third in line for the Presidency.
Have the Mopologists commented on this at all? I have to say: this doesn’t really surprise me. There has always been something of a flippant disregard for the sacredness of the temple in Mopologetics. I recall Kevin Graham telling a story about some of the old FAIR/SHIELDS yokels screwing around in the temple—I.e., using the space to do “recruiting,” and that sort of thing. The Mopologists have always been willing to do almost anything to score points against critics, and that evidently includes profaning the temple.
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Kishkumen wrote:
There is nothing to answer. It is not a question of wanting to answer anything or not. You made an empty accusation. You did not pose a hypothetical. I can’t and won’t get involved in what is a confused query with a dubious purpose.
I made no accusations and frankly don’t understand the defensiveness.
I have simply observed that, much like others here, you more frequently take umbrage when Mormons are naughty than you do when ex Mormons are naughty. I wondered why, and I asked.
So it’s okay to ridicule other religions so long as you’re sure of your “facts”?
Let’s look at what Joseph Smith actually said:
I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things: but the creeds set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’; which I cannot subscribe to.”
And you take these sorts of observations as “ridicule”. In the first vision Joseph was told “that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight”. That’s not making fun…i.e.,ridiculing…the other religions. It’s stating an unfortunate reality that, “The world lieth in sin at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not <my> commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me.”
1832 version of 1st Vision
Beginning around A.D. 200, Christians began to espouse and require of each other adherence to particular creeds, demonstrating and propagating their belief in Jesus Christ. Such creeds seemed needful because many people were teaching a wide range of doctrines about Jesus. Indeed, some of these heretical groups were way off the mark. https://rsc.BYU.edu/prelude-restoration ... bomination
Your accusation of the church ridiculing other religions is just silly on its face.
