Rich's Website

[_Valorius]

Rich certainly thinks it is he who determines truth, but neither he nor I do. He, however, choose to attack other faiths from his complete ignorance, while I do not.

"in his complete ignorance" - nothing like an attack there, right, Simon. No supreme judgement. No closed mind. Just an honest observation that someone is in "complete ignorance." Do you not see how worthless you make your judgments when you attack someone, accusing them of "complete ignorance"? Even if Rich were mistaken in every single conclusion he made, the relevance of his references to reach those conclusions demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has much knowledge about Mormonism. Whether he is right or wrong, whether even he were well-intentioned or otherwise, he is not ignorant, and certainly not in "complete ignorance." Being nasty, calling names, attacking him the way you do, isn't going to change his mind. You need to learn how to speak (write) persuasively. Your efforts so far deserve an 'F'. For each person you successfully persuade to see things your way, you can raise that grade by one-third point. F to F+, F+ to D-, etc. You really need to tone down your bitterness. "You can catch more flies (and friends) with sugar than with vinegar." You need to work on that. Rich is not completely ignorant of Mormonism. Such an attack must be an act of desperation. There is no need to accuse someone of being totally ignorant, is there. The only reason I see for people telling other people they are in "complete ignorance" is when the accuser himself is uncertain of the facts, or fearful of having his beliefs proven wrong. Just face the facts. Read "Desiderata" or something. Get you act together. Stop playing the role of impotent bully.

[_Simon Belmont]

Belmont,

Are you saying that the fact that he claimed not to be anti-Mormon, makes him an anti-Mormon?

Is that it, or has he done something that you believe is against Mormons? If so, what is it?

The statement stands alone, Jersey Girl. Perhaps you have to be the one being attacked to understand.

Rich would probably say he's defending Christianity.

But he isn't. He's just attacking other faiths. As I have maintained, Rich should promote his own particular brand of Christianity and leave the rest of us alone.

And many would say that FAIR does, indeed, attack.

And they would be wrong. Even in Scratch's example. Think about it: no attacks upon Mormonism from Bob McCue, no rebuttals from FAIR. Again, no attacks = no need to defend.

As far as the Church itself goes, isn't the phrase "the great and abominable church" (also called the "great whore of all the earth") that is used to refer to Christianity after the so-called "great apostasy" something of an attack?

Absolutely not, Morley. Serious question: have you ever been LDS?

[_Morley]

Absolutely not, Morley. Serious question: have you ever been LDS?

We're discussing a concept. My history has nothing to do with it. Nor does yours.

[_MrStakhanovite]

no thinking = no problems!

[_Simon Belmont]

"You can catch more flies (and friends) with sugar than with vinegar."

It's honey, not sugar!

Rich is not completely ignorant of Mormonism.

Yes he is.

Such an attack must be an act of desperation. There is no need to accuse someone of being totally ignorant, is there. The only reason I see for people telling other people they are in "complete ignorance" is when the accuser himself is uncertain of the facts, or fearful of having his beliefs proven wrong. Just face the facts. Read "Desiderata" or something. Get you act together. Stop playing the role of impotent bully.

I am no bully. I just want Rich to promote his own little brand/sect/denomination and leave the rest alone.

[_Simon Belmont]

We're discussing a concept. My history has nothing to do with it. Nor does yours.

Okay, Mr. Defensive. I was just curious because we don't teach what you think we teach about the "whore" or whatever.

[_Jersey Girl]

Belmont,

How has Criddle attacked you?

[_Simon Belmont]

Belmont,

How has Criddle attacked you?

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

[_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?

[_Morley]

We're discussing a concept. My history has nothing to do with it. Nor does yours.

Okay, Mr. Defensive. I was just curious because we don't teach what you think we teach about the "whore" or whatever.

Nothing defensive, Simon. I've talked about my history before, but in this thread it's just a deflection.

Back to the topic. Though the LDS Church takes no present official position on what constitutes the "Great and Abominable Church," several LDS leaders have specifically noted that it refers to Christianity or the Catholic Church. Personally, I don't have any problems with this. I do, however, think that it's an example of LDS leaders attacking another faith.