Themis wrote: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.
I said IF it is inaccurate. So far you avoided saying it is. As far as biased goes, the church website and other materials are very biased and very slanted. Fair and farms as well. Still not seeing what the problem is if someone puts up accurate information.
Themis wrote:I said IF it is inaccurate. So far you avoided saying it is. As far as biased goes, the church website and other materials are very biased and very slanted. Fair and farms as well. Still not seeing what the problem is if someone puts up accurate information.
The church website, FAIR, and FARMS do not attack other faiths. They promote their own.
And Rich should put up accurate information about his own particular brand of Christianity! He has neither the writing ability, researching ability, or objectivity to comment on other faiths than his own.
This does not answer why it is wrong to put up accurate information about other religions, regardless of the authors own beliefs or abilities. As far as objectivity, lack of it by the church and apologists do not stop them. Are you a hypocrit and think it is ok for them to.
I see SB has avioded this issue which supposedly is why he is attacking Rich. I would still be interested in why you think it is wrong to put accurate information about other religions on ones website.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Jun 30, 2011 3:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Jersey Girl wrote:Okay, but tell me why you single out Criddle with regards to the wordprint studies?
One of Rich's many anti-Mormon links (and, I might add, only one non-anti-Mormon link) was to Craig Criddle's word-print study. When I posted Rich's anti-Mormon links, you asked about Craig Criddle. Other than that, I am not singling him out.
Simon wrote: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.
Simon wrote:How many have you talked to about this? My experience was quite different -- we talked about it in Seminary.
This is good to know. I wish that we had discussed MMM during seminary. It was not in the seminary curriculum when I taught seminary in college...and I don't believe that it is a standard part of the current curriculum involving Church History, but I could be wrong. The first I had heard about it was when one of my daughters came to me with questions about it due to a school project. It had nothing to do with seminary.
Simon wrote:How many have you talked to about this? My experience was quite different -- we talked about it in Seminary.
This is good to know. I wish that we had discussed MMM during seminary. It was not in the seminary curriculum when I taught seminary in college...and I don't believe that it is a standard part of the current curriculum involving Church History, but I could be wrong. The first I had heard about it was when one of my daughters came to me with questions about it due to a school project. It had nothing to do with seminary.
This is an extremely important point. Simon has been saying that it's the "responsibility" of the individuals to go out and learn this stuff, and yet he himself was *taught* this in seminary---and it was apparently not part of the seminary curriculum. In other words, he lucked out and got a teacher who was deviating away from correlated doctrine.
"[I]f, 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