Rich's Website

[_thews]

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

Rich,

I warned you in dealing with Simon the sociopath. Sociopaths believe their own lies... what they know is not true. It's why Simon Belmont won't man up and acknowledge what he had previously said regarding Joseph Smith's translation of the Kinderhook plates. It's why he won't man up and acknowledge you know far too much about Mormonism to be called (insert whatever he called you here). It's why he equates criticism into "hate"... it's just shock value that misses the mark.

Simon's "tactic" (if you wish to call it that), is that of a broken record. Once he's cornered, he'll just keep asking you the same question in the hopes you'll get bored with him. Simon Belmont does not now, nor has he ever answered questions... what Simon says is not intellectually honest, is not intended to be a verbal exchange of ideas in order to communicate civilly, but rather one of a parrot. The parrot spouts what he's been taught to spout, and like a parrot, there is no honest verbal exchange, but rather the actions of a sociopath who believes his own lies. He doesn't hear you, he won't hear you, and he's not intelligent enough to know when he should stop, so he'll just continue to ask questions without answering them. If you'd like an example (one of many), look here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=19016&start=21 the ignorance of his own quoted words defines his agenda, which is one of a liar.

In conclusion, you have a right to your opinion, you aren't "attacking" anyone by voicing it, and you're wasting your time acknowledging Simon the sociopath who is so intellectually dishonest he refuses to acknowledge his own words. Keep up the good work, but Simon is a lost cause with zero credibility that should be ignored.

[_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.

Simon,

I would really like to see you address my points. Thanks.

[_schreech]

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.

Lol:

World English Dictionary
faith (feɪθ) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence.

So, according your delusional (and very convenient definition of faith) Rich doesn't have a "strong or unshakeable belief" that he needs to share his brand of christianity with others...I guess that's why he spends so much time writing about these not-so-strong beliefs...So, lets try this again:

Now that you have bored me to tears and embarrassed yourself thoroughly throughout this thread (no surprise there), can you explain why its ok to attack his beliefs, some may say "faith" (that he is supposed 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? Its not tough to see why people might read the comments of LDS defenders, like yourself, and consider the organization harmful...

[_Simon Belmont]

Lol:

World English Dictionary
faith (feɪθ) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence.

So, according your delusional (and very convenient definition of faith) Rich doesn't have a "strong or unshakeable belief" that he needs to share his brand of christianity with others...I guess that's why he spends so much time writing about these not-so-strong beliefs...So, lets try this again:

Schreech, you're now embarrassing yourself beyond any reasonable measure. Just stop it. You lost.

If you really, truly believe that it is Rich's faith to attack other religions because they are different than his, even though Rich himself said his faith was Christianity, you are delusional and I cannot help you.

Attacking other religions is not a religion in itself.
Attacking other faiths is not faith itself.
These facts are indisputable.

I want Rich to promote his own particular brand of Christianity on his website. I wish he could do it without attacking other faiths/religions.

[_Simon Belmont]

Rich,

I warned you in dealing with Simon the sociopath.

Do you know what a sociopath is?

[_Simon Belmont]

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

Where are you finding that we don't have access? The church owns a world-ranked University with massive resources both online and at its libraries. The church maintains massive genealogy databases, church history facilities and museums, etc.

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

I don't see any "white lies" -- what I see is church service focusing on worship, and feeling the spirit, not on historical education.

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.

Did you utilize any of the church provided resources to discover the facts? (BYU libraries, church history library, office of church historian, etc.?)

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.

But I don't think church service is about teaching history. It's about worship, taking the sacrament, and feeling the spirit.

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

How many have you talked to about this? My experience was quite different -- we talked about it in Seminary.

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.

There are times when I think the correlation thing is gets out of hand, too, if that's what you're alluding to. It's as if we're being taught the most basic stuff over and over. Like going through college still learning the alphabet and how to spell out names.

[_Themis]

I want Rich to promote his own particular brand of Christianity on his website. I wish he could do it without attacking other faiths/religions.

Whats wrong with providing information about other religions on ones website. If the information is accurate I hardly see how they are attacking one beliefs.

[_Simon Belmont]

Whats wrong with providing information about other religions on ones website. If the information is accurate I hardly see how they are attacking one beliefs.

No, it isn't. It's very biased. It's very slanted. It isn't balanced at all.

[_Morley]

Whats wrong with providing information about other religions on ones website. If the information is accurate I hardly see how they are attacking one beliefs.

No, it isn't. It's very biased. It's very slanted. It isn't balanced at all.

For what it's worth, Liz and Jersey both had items in this thread they wanted you to address, Simon.

[_Simon Belmont]

Belmont,

Would you please answer my question?

Craig Criddle said this:

"I refuse to be labeled Anti-Mormon. I am Pro-Mormon. Those who would deceive my Mormon loved ones and associates are the Anti's."

Craig Criddle also actively attempts to disprove the Book of Mormon with word print studies, etc.