Rich's Website

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

The thing is: we know quite well by now that there are a number of aspects of Church history and doctrine that upset people. And something needs to be done to address this. You seem to be advocating that *nothing* be done.

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, however you put it. The point is that criticism of the Church had you mightily upset.

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?

I never said anything about "spoon feed[ing] you everything." The bottom line is, just as Rich has pointed out, that people are getting hurt by the Church, and something should be done about this.

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?

"Unreal expectations"? How can you have "unreal expectations" about something that the Church has deliberately tried to whitewash, cover-up, and/or bury?

[_Simon Belmont]

The thing is: we know quite well by now that there are a number of aspects of Church history and doctrine that upset people. And something needs to be done to address this. You seem to be advocating that *nothing* be done.

It's true. There are some aspects that upset people if they expected a perfect history (an unreal expectation). Nothing is being done to address this within the church proper, but really good information is coming out of our academic sector -- namely from BYU.

But I'm an advocate of taking responsibility for one's own self. You already knew this, but I alone am responsible for what I learn and what I "whitewash." Perhaps the change should come from the membership -- from the people. We need to be encouraged to learn things on our own and to think critically.

Well, however you put it. The point is that criticism of the Church had you mightily upset.

That much is certain.

"Unreal expectations"? How can you have "unreal expectations" about something that the Church has deliberately tried to whitewash, cover-up, and/or bury?

What I meant was that anytime someone thinks history or anything else in the charge of men and women is perfect, they need to be taught to think critically. Thinking anything is perfect is an unreal expectation.

[_Buffalo]

What I meant was that anytime someone thinks history or anything else in the charge of men and women is perfect, they need to be taught to think critically. Thinking anything is perfect is an unreal expectation.

Critical thinking is antithetical to the 14 fundamentals of following the prophet.

[_Simon Belmont]

Rich, how do you expect to have a dialogue with someone when you run away from their criticisms? Do you believe that you are allowed to criticize someone else's faith, but no one is allowed to criticize you?

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).

Hundreds of people have written hundreds of articles on the exact same subjects, and many of them are much better than yours are -- many of them are fair and balanced, not attacking like yours are.

So why did you write them?

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

That is not true at all, Rich. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't lie on this thread (at least). I said "so what" to the fact that some people believe differently than your particular brand of Christianity. So what? Leave them alone. Promote your own brand.

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.

It is hard to take a snippet out of an article that wholly misrepresents my faith. I mean, just look at your links section -- all but one anti-Mormon links. Why, Rich?

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

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.

Rich, again, do you believe that only you are allowed to criticize, but no one is allowed to criticize you? I don't need "creative criticism" to see that your articles and links represent standard, run-of-the-mill anti-Mormonism that has been done thousands of times before.

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!

Your website stands as a major embarrassment to you.

[_Yoda]

We need to be encouraged to learn things on our own and to think critically.

Agreed. However, we also need to have access to the correct tools to learn these things and think critically.

Facts are facts. It is wrong for the Church to encourage "white lies", whether or not they are faith promoting.

When I was growing up in the Church, I was taught that the main reason polygamy existed was to care for the widows of the men who died on the trek to Salt Lake. As far as Joseph Smith's polygamy was concerned, I was taught that many women simply sealed themselves to him after his death. I had NO knowledge of Joseph Smith's polyandry AT ALL until about 5 years ago.

Could these misconceptions have been taught on a local level? Yes....however, I find it very coincidental that many other members I have spoken to in many different states were taught the same types of misconceptions.

I also had no knowledge of MMM until several years ago.

Please understand, Simon...I think that there ARE faith promoting ways to look at some of these incidents...but the truth is the truth! Everyone needs to be looking at these incidents from the same page.

[_Doctor Scratch]

The thing is: we know quite well by now that there are a number of aspects of Church history and doctrine that upset people. And something needs to be done to address this. You seem to be advocating that *nothing* be done.

It's true. There are some aspects that upset people if they expected a perfect history (an unreal expectation).

Is this what you think the issue is? I.e., that people expect a "perfect" history (whatever that means)?

Nothing is being done to address this within the church proper, but really good information is coming out of our academic sector -- namely from BYU.

It needs to happen within the Church proper. Every issue of the FARMS Review comes with a disclaimer attached that distances the information therein from the "official" Church.

But I'm an advocate of taking responsibility for one's own self. You already knew this, but I alone am responsible for what I learn and what I "whitewash." Perhaps the change should come from the membership -- from the people. We need to be encouraged to learn things on our own and to think critically.

This has been part of the problem, though. One of the problems is that people start digging around, and they come face to face with something like Mormon Enigma or Rough Stone Rolling, and they realize that the Church is chock-full of lies by omission.

So your solution is awfully silly, Simon.

"Unreal expectations"? How can you have "unreal expectations" about something that the Church has deliberately tried to whitewash, cover-up, and/or bury?

What I meant was that anytime someone thinks history or anything else in the charge of men and women is perfect, they need to be taught to think critically. Thinking anything is perfect is an unreal expectation.

I don't think that's the issue, Simon. I think what bothers people is the sense that they've been lied to.

[_Yoda]

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.

Hey, Rich,

Feel free to post your article in the Writer's Workshop Forum, if you want to kick around some ideas! :-)

[_schreech]

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.

Lets go back to my clarification of my original statement, since you seem to be too dim to actually follow along...

"You CREATED an op that attacks his need to share his brand of christianity with other people and warn people away from pseudo-religious social clubs like the LDS church....Quit being a hypocritical bigot......."

To which you said:

"I told Rich that he needs to focus on promoting his brand of Christianity and stop attacking other people's faith."

To which I said:

"So you attacked his "faith"...got it, hypocrite...." referring to his need to "share his brand of christianity" and warn people away from unhealthy religions...

So, you dullard, I never said you attacked "christianity"...

Now that you have bored me to tears and embarrassed yourself thoroughly throughout this thread, can you explain why its ok to attack his beliefs (that he needs to share his brand of christianity with others and warn people away from organizations that he deems harmful) when you demanded that he stop attacking yours?

[_Simon Belmont]

Lets go back to my clarification of my original statement, since you seem to be too dim to actually follow along...

"You CREATED an op that attacks his need to share his brand of christianity with other people and warn people away from pseudo-religious social clubs like the LDS church....Quit being a hypocritical bigot......."

You've very gravely mistaken (as usual).

I created no OP.
I encourage Rich to share his particular brand of Christianity and to stop attacking others for being different.

"So you attacked his "faith"...got it, hypocrite...." referring to his need to "share his brand of christianity" and warn people away from unhealthy religions...

Which, of course, is entirely incorrect. Rich promoting his brand of Christianity has nothing to do with attacking other faiths. Attacking other faiths is not, in itself, a faith.

So, you dullard, I never said you attacked "christianity"...

Oh, okay, so Rich's faith is not "Christianity?" Well, since you know better than Rich what Rich's faith is, why don't you tell us what Rich's faith is.

Now that you have bored me to tears and embarrassed yourself thoroughly throughout this thread, can you explain why its ok to attack his beliefs (that he needs to share his brand of christianity with others and warn people away from organizations that he deems harmful) when you demanded that he stop attacking yours?

Attacking the beliefs of others is not, in itself, a faith. Rich's faith is a particular brand of Christianity, which I encourage him to promote -- without attacking others.

Try to follow along next time.

[_Buffalo]

If there were an Olympic event for whining and faux victimhood fetishism, Simon would be the gold medal champion.