Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cdowis

New Game in Town with the Antis

Recommended Posts

On 3/4/2019 at 12:57 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

.... "It is true in general that modesty among non-Mormons has been declining for generations.  This applies as well to vulgar speech and behavior."  This tendency in the general population is well-documented and immediately apparent simply by observing people on the street, in buses, at work, etc., in America at large.  Most people are not traditional Christians of any sort and most openly use vulgar speech, drink booze, and mock those who do not behave in a dissolute manner....

 What do you mean by 'most.... mock those who do not behave in a dissolute manner'?  That seems so counter to what I've experienced.  I'm curious as to how you've come to this conclusion. 

-cacheman

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, cacheman said:

 What do you mean by 'most.... mock those who do not behave in a dissolute manner'?  That seems so counter to what I've experienced.  I'm curious as to how you've come to this conclusion. 

-cacheman

Maybe living in Los Angeles for so long and seeing that behavior up close and personal for so many years.  Being in Provo has been so much different since then, almost a throwback to the quiet 1950s when I was a teenager --- and dissolute behavior was not yet normal.  The major populations of America do not live in bucolic rural settings.  They live in the big cities where cussing, boozing, and such are the norm.  Maybe you don't take big city buses, where dissolute behavior is the new normal.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Maybe living in Los Angeles for so long and seeing that behavior up close and personal for so many years.  Being in Provo has been so much different since then, almost a throwback to the quiet 1950s when I was a teenager --- and dissolute behavior was not yet normal.  The major populations of America do not live in bucolic rural settings.  They live in the big cities where cussing, boozing, and such are the norm.  Maybe you don't take big city buses, where dissolute behavior is the new normal.

That may have more to do with class. I encounter that too on big city buses, but when I was a young man and did manual labor in more rural areas, it was the same environment.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, CA Steve said:

The last laugh will go to the people with the biggest supply of guns and ammunition.

Yes, I am sure the Lord’s plan for his triumphal return is to arrive as his saints are blowing away their starving enemies.

How about the words of General Authority on the matter? Here is Elder Featherstone:

Quote

I should like to address a few remarks to those who ask, “Do I share with my neighbors who have not followed the counsel? And what about the nonmembers who do not have a year’s supply? Do we have to share with them?” No, we don’t have to share--we get to share! Let us not be concerned about silly thoughts of whether we would share or not. Of course we would share! What would Jesus do? I could not possibly eat food and see my neighbors starving. And if you starve to death after sharing, “greater love hath no man than this …” (John 15:13.)
Now what about those who would plunder and break in and take that which we have stored for our families’ needs? Don’t give this one more idle thought. There is a God in heaven whom we have obeyed. Do you suppose he would abandon those who have kept his commandments? He said, “If ye are prepared, ye need not fear.” (D&C 38:30.) Prepare, O men of Zion, and fear not. Let Zion put on her beautiful garments. Let us put on the full armor of God. Let us be pure in heart, love mercy, be just, and stand in holy places.

In more modern times you have Elder Oaks specifying that we should be stockpiling food and not weapons.

Still, the members of the LDS Freedom Forum are terrified of, or more likely, are salivating at the prospect of being ready to start killing people in the imminent post-apocalyptic hellscape.

So we have been told not to stockpile arms and ammo but some would rather trust in the arm of flesh. I am sure that will go well for them.

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Calm said:

Is there a significant faith that has included gay marriage as one of their faith tenets?  

 

I don't want to derail this thread by telling you all the mocking I have heard from members both at church and outside the church.  It is pointless.  But you might be unaware of exactly how many Christian churches accept gay marriage.

 
MCCNY, a church in New York City.
 
Grace Gospel Chapel, in Seattle.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Gray said:

That may have more to do with class. I encounter that too on big city buses, but when I was a young man and did manual labor in more rural areas, it was the same environment.

Of course, but I am talking mainstream culture today, in which college students think it chic to smoke dope, drink booze, cuss, and cheat on tests.  It isn't only the lower classes or inner city where one finds that carousing and gangsta behavior.  Disregard for others, particularly for women and children, is the new normal.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I suggest that you drop the act and go back and read the libelous statements you made, reflect on them, and make a decision to repent.

Maybe Robert and Navidad could swear off responding to each other's posts for awhile?  It doesn't seem to be a positive experience for either of you and it looks to me like both of you are misreading each other and reading things into comments that aren't there, making assumptions that don't have to be made.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Maybe Robert and Navidad could swear off responding to each other's posts for awhile?  It doesn't seem to be a positive experience for either of you and it looks to me like both of you are misreading each other and reading things into comments that aren't there, making assumptions that don't have to be made.

My sincere  belief is that Navidad is a wolf in sheep's clothing, has evil intent (as disclosed by his substantive false accusations), and is now playing the same game on this board.  He has even admitted his close association with some of the most notable anti-Mormons (such as Walter Martin), a long history which indicates the direction he takes in furtherance of his anti-Mormon objectives.  It is possible that much of what he believes is a Freudian projection of his own unstable experiences onto Mormons he has met together with anti-Mormon literature he has read.  Even when he reads, he misinterprets as a form of confirmation bias to fit those preconceptions.

One has only to carefully go through his long posts to find the facts for that specific analysis.  There he clearly discloses who he really is, and that he lacks self-awareness.

How different it is when we read on this board the substantive comments of non-Mormons such as Rory (3DOP) or Rob Bowman.

Edited by Robert F. Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Navidad said:

My projection also comes from the hundreds of books I have bought and read by faithful Mormons of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. Generally speaking the tone about non-member Christians is not very positive in the writings of many of them. I form my perspectives from them. Nibley, Talmage, Roberts, the Pratts, and many others are giants in the Mormon church. They have had an extensive influence on what the Church is today, especially in the dual sense of culture and doctrine. 

You are talking about the Utah / Mountain West culture. Were you to go to Asia, Africa, east of the Mississippi, the "Utah culture" would not be so dominate.  I've been living in Georgia and in Utah and experienced the vast differences in culture.   Here in Georgia, the only mocking I have heard is from the missionaries who are primarily from Utah, etc

Edited by cdowis
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't want to derail this thread by telling you all the mocking I have heard from members both at church and outside the church.  It is pointless.  But you might be unaware of exactly how many Christian churches accept gay marriage.

Please remove this post and start your own thread.

Thankyousoverymuch.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Please remove this post and start your own thread.

Thankyousoverymuch.

My apologies for asking the question, I was wondering if there were larger groups who adopted a somewhat parallel official 'article of faith' of gay marriage as is held by the Church (and others similar) for heterosexual marriage where "[w]e...solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God"  I see this as different than having a policy to accept as valid what individuals choose. It would be interesting, but in another thread.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course, but I am talking mainstream culture today, in which college students think it chic to smoke dope, drink booze, cuss, and cheat on tests.  It isn't only the lower classes or inner city where one finds that carousing and gangsta behavior.  Disregard for others, particularly for women and children, is the new normal.

Well I'm not as old as you, but I haven't noticed any changes from at least the 90s. As I recall booze has been popular on campuses for many decades, and dope smoking at least for the last 70 years (before that it was opiates and cocaine).

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Gray said:

Well I'm not as old as you, but I haven't noticed any changes from at least the 90s. As I recall booze has been popular on campuses for many decades, and dope smoking at least for the last 70 years (before that it was opiates and cocaine).

There are areas in which the downward spiral into crude, rude, obscene, and criminal behavior is less noticeable, and it is to those areas that middle class people living in the inner city move.  Widespread gang infestation is also a huge problem.  At 78 I take the long view and can describe the transitional nature of parts of L.A in detail over many decades.  I spent years working in all parts of L.A., including the inner city, so have a good understanding of the differences.

Middle class kids simply did not use weed, coke, or opiates 60 years ago.  Most kids did not even know what they were.  That quickly changed during the Vietnam and Hippie era, and has grown progressively worse since then.  Opioide deaths now are at an all time high, university liberal arts has disappeared as a serious endeavor, and we are witnessing the death of Western civ.  https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates 

 

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There are areas in which the downward spiral into crude, rude, obscene, and criminal behavior is less noticeable, and it is to those areas that middle class people living in the inner city move.  Widespread gang infestation is also a huge problem.  At 78 I take the long view and can describe the transitional nature of parts of L.A in detail over many decades.  I spent years working in all parts of L.A., including the inner city, so have a good understanding of the differences.

Middle class kids simply did not use weed, coke, or opiates 60 years ago.  Most kids did not even know what they were.  That quickly changed during the Vietnam and Hippie era, and has grown progressively worse since then.  Opioide deaths now are at an all time high, university liberal arts has disappeared as a serious endeavor, and we are witnessing the death of Western civ.  https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates 

 

In a sense yes, but opiate use was pretty common in the 19th century.  The current opiate situation is a bit different - there has been a conspiracy to get people addicted to opiates. Purdue Pharma is finally going to start paying a price for its role in the conspiracy.

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-purdue-pharma-oxycontin-possible-bankruptcy-20190304-story.html

As far as weed goes, it's a social ill, but an improvement over alcohol, which has been commonly abused at all levels of society forever.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, cdowis said:

Please remove this post and start your own thread.

Thankyousoverymuch.

He was specifically responding to a direct question asked of him and he stated that he did not want to "derail this thread".  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

They live in the big cities where cussing, boozing, and such are the norm

I enjoy reading articles from Mormon magazines from the 19th century. Today I found this little gem from George Q Cannon in the editorial column of the June 4th, 1874 edition of the Juvenile Instructor.

Quote

Swearing---Of all the crimes that ever disgraced society, that of swearing admits of the least palliation, No possible benefit can be derived from it; and nothing but perverseness and depravity of human nature, would ever have suggested it; yet such is its prevalence, that by many, it is mistaken for a fashionable acquirement, and considered, by unreflecting persons,  indicative of energy and decision  of character. In reality, swearing is a mark of a low, ignorant, vulgar and sinful training and disposition, and no person of decency would be guilty of it.

I honestly don't think the swearing problem is anything new, I just think as we age we notice stuff like that more.

On the other hand back then they really had a problem with the youth waltzing and "round dancing".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, I am sure the Lord’s plan for his triumphal return is to arrive as his saints are blowing away their starving enemies.

Sometime I don't understand how your mind works. How did you get from me implying that the Mennonites might not be able to protect their food in "tough times" to the Lord approving of the saints blowing away starving enemies in the apocalypse?

 

FWIW, I own no guns and have maybe a 90 day supply of food but only a couple weeks supply of water, and a couple of 72 hour kits in the cars. My parents, on the other hand, were fans of both guns and having a year's supply for a large family. Now, at the end of their lives my siblings and I are trying to figure out what to do with the dozens of 50-60 year old 5 gallon cans of wheat, and piles and piles of other very old food stuffs they have stockpiled for the impending end of days that has been going to happen anytime now for centuries. 

Edited by CA Steve
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Sometime I don't understand how your mind works. How did you get from me implying that the Mennonites might not be able to protect their food in "tough times" to the Lord approving of the saints blowing away starving enemies in the apocalypse?

 

FWIW, I own no guns and have maybe a 90 day supply of food but only a couple weeks supply of water, and a couple of 72 hour kits in the cars. My parents, on the other hand, were fans of both guns and having a year's supply for a large family. Now, at the end of their lives my siblings and I are trying to figure out what to do with the dozens of 50-60 year old 5 gallon cans of wheat, and piles and piles of other very old food stuffs they have stockpiled for the impending end of days that has been going to happen anytime now for centuries. 

I was mocking survivalists in general and not your particular case.

Edit: And I do not understand how my mind works either.

Edited by The Nehor

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

I enjoy reading articles from Mormon magazines from the 19th century. Today I found this little gem from George Q Cannon in the editorial column of the June 4th, 1874 edition of the Juvenile Instructor.

I honestly don't think the swearing problem is anything new, I just think as we age we notice stuff like that more..........................

When I was growing up as a child and teenager (40s and 50s), I just did not hear that much cussing.  It was something that juvenile delinquents did, the riffraff from the other side of the tracks -- future prison inmates.  Today it is done deliberately throughout the larger society (frequently in any film), and particularly by Univ of Utah students at any game with BYU.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Sometime I don't understand how your mind works. How did you get from me implying that the Mennonites might not be able to protect their food in "tough times" to the Lord approving of the saints blowing away starving enemies in the apocalypse?

FWIW, I own no guns and have maybe a 90 day supply of food but only a couple weeks supply of water, and a couple of 72 hour kits in the cars. My parents, on the other hand, were fans of both guns and having a year's supply for a large family. Now, at the end of their lives my siblings and I are trying to figure out what to do with the dozens of 50-60 year old 5 gallon cans of wheat, and piles and piles of other very old food stuffs they have stockpiled for the impending end of days that has been going to happen anytime now for centuries. 

This really is an issue that be discussed more often in the world community - if you store food stuffs then you must rotate it, it must be used, or it will go to waste. Five or so years ago we started going through and rotating our food storage. I can tell you that beans become a very tough product if you exceed 20 years sealed in a large can. We got really tired of eating chili cooked in a slow cooker. If we tried to cook it on the stove the beans never got soft. The rice was inedible and had to be thrown away. 

Wheat is something, once purchased, really needs to be used. Not everyone can turn into a cook capable of using raw wheat and make it edible. Once we stopped our weekly grinding of wheat and making our own breads - we stopped storing wheat. Our current reserves have zero wheat in them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 3/5/2019 at 10:21 PM, Calm said:

Maybe Robert and Navidad could swear off responding to each other's posts for awhile?  It doesn't seem to be a positive experience for either of you and it looks to me like both of you are misreading each other and reading things into comments that aren't there, making assumptions that don't have to be made.

Thanks. I agree. I have apologized (a form of confession and repentance)  at least twice for anything I said that was offensive. I am also working very hard in my own mind and heart not to generalize his attack (including his latest and strongest) on me to the wider Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints community. That would be unfair. What I would like to do is fly to wherever he lives and spend a day with him so we could perhaps come to understand each other better and heal the wounds that are between us. The monological nature of a forum like this is not the best way to dialogue. Thanks for being a voice of "Calm" in the midst of this storm. 

Edited by Navidad
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/5/2019 at 9:51 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course, but I am talking mainstream culture today, in which college students think it chic to smoke dope, drink booze, cuss, and cheat on tests.  It isn't only the lower classes or inner city where one finds that carousing and gangsta behavior.  Disregard for others, particularly for women and children, is the new normal.

Chic?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/5/2019 at 10:14 AM, Navidad said:

Hi. My concern is not so much the mocking of certain beliefs, systems or even doctrines. My concern centers on the mocking of people, real live human beings who are not caricatures, cartoons, but real live folks. Who I am as a person was mocked last night. The invective was filled with "you statements." The shift from attacking my beliefs to demeaning me and my family was swift and unexpected. Nothing I postulated as a belief was marginalized. It was characterized as "false accusations" and then quickly moved to marginalizing me as a person . It confirmed my worst fears about the LD S faith. The final moment of his triumph was the declaration of me as an "anti-Mormon," the classic slur designed to end all debate. Oh, and for good measure, so probably was your father! Why not throw in my autistic son while you are at it? I know from thousands of hours of counseling with dysfunctional families the negative power of "you statements." Last night I experienced it first-hand! That is the kind of mocking I am talking about.

 

On 3/5/2019 at 10:44 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

My sincere  belief is that Navidad is a wolf in sheep's clothing, has evil intent (as disclosed by his substantive false accusations), and is now playing the same game on this board.  He has even admitted his close association with some of the most notable anti-Mormons (such as Walter Martin), a long history which indicates the direction he takes in furtherance of his anti-Mormon objectives.  It is possible that much of what he believes is a Freudian projection of his own unstable experiences onto Mormons he has met together with anti-Mormon literature he has read.  Even when he reads, he misinterprets as a form of confirmation bias to fit those preconceptions.

One has only to carefully go through his long posts to find the facts for that specific analysis.  There he clearly discloses who he really is, and that he lacks self-awareness.

How different it is when we read on this board the substantive comments of non-Mormons such as Rory (3DOP) or Rob Bowman.

I am not a super long term poster here, and I hesitate to intervene here. I do not wish to open something back up which I feel needs to close. However, I wish to speak as someone who respects and loves both of you as a brother in Christ.  It would be best if you stop contending. Robert, while I respect you immensely you are prone to be opinionated, imho of course, and have accused me of being incorrect, and the like. I basically always have reasons for my positions unless I say it is just my opinion, and can offer evidence to refute you, but sometimes I just let you be right, because tbh, it is just no worth the effort. 

As someone who takes occasional pokes at the theologies of my Christian brothers, I feel I understand at least some of Navidad's frustration. He feels LDS Christians are a little duplicitous here. However, i never make the claim that I don't criticize other Christians. I freely admit that I do, and Navidad I feel is just being honest about it. In turn Navidad has a few criticisms of LDS Christians and the Church's form of Christianity. Guess what? So do I as well. Does that make me an "anti-Mormon?" I hope not. If you can't take a little honest criticism Robert, perhaps you are banging your head around in the wrong forum. In my observation you certainly make criticisms of your own. Rather than continuing in a parlay of accusations, I suggest sitting down and considering each grievance, and whether they can clearly be seen as misrepresenting facts. If you continue to feel they do, then maybe just those points can be addressed as to whether misrepresentation is actually occurring. That is the only time I personally feel the charge of anti-Mormon can accurately be assessed.

I say this in the hopes of not stirring up animosity but that we can step back and appreciate honest criticism for what it is, rather than accusing others of making false statements. I love you both for your stalwart defense of what you believe to be the true gospel of Christ, and hope that any further exchange can be in this spirit, and I commend brother Navidad for apologizing for any unintended offense, because I believe it shows his true intent - I hope that is no longer in question.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

 

I am not a super long term poster here, and I hesitate to intervene here. I do not wish to open something back up which I feel needs to close. However, I wish to speak as someone who respects and loves both of you as a brother in Christ.  It would be best if you stop contending. Robert, while I respect you immensely you are prone to be opinionated, imho of course, and have accused me of being incorrect, and the like. I basically always have reasons for my positions unless I say it is just my opinion, and can offer evidence to refute you, but sometimes I just let you be right, because tbh, it is just no worth the effort. 

As someone who takes occasional pokes at the theologies of my Christian brothers, I feel I understand at least some of Navidad's frustration. He feels LDS Christians are a little duplicitous here. However, i never make the claim that I don't criticize other Christians. I freely admit that I do, and Navidad I feel is just being honest about it. In turn Navidad has a few criticisms of LDS Christians and the Church's form of Christianity. Guess what? So do I as well. Does that make me an "anti-Mormon?" I hope not. If you can't take a little honest criticism Robert, perhaps you are banging your head around in the wrong forum. In my observation you certainly make criticisms of your own. Rather than continuing in a parlay of accusations, I suggest sitting down and considering each grievance, and whether they can clearly be seen as misrepresenting facts. If you continue to feel they do, then maybe just those points can be addressed as to whether misrepresentation is actually occurring. That is the only time I personally feel the charge of anti-Mormon can accurately be assessed.

I say this in the hopes of not stirring up animosity but that we can step back and appreciate honest criticism for what it is, rather than accusing others of making false statements. I love you both for your stalwart defense of what you believe to be the true gospel of Christ, and hope that any further exchange can be in this spirit, and I commend brother Navidad for apologizing for any unintended offense, because I believe it shows his true intent - I hope that is no longer in question.

Well said. Perhaps I can help by quickly make one thing clear. I indicated in one of my posts that I remember Donald Grey Barnhouse and Walter Martin in our home. Barnhouse died in 1960. So, that means I was less than 11 years old when they were there. I cared more about the special treats my mom would make on those occasions than on the beliefs of those present. Martin had no influence on my faith and I consciously and deliberately have never read, nor do I own any of his books or articles. I certain know of him, his controversies, and position as a fundamentalist cult guru of a generation ago. We often had preachers, Bible teachers, etc. in our home. My job was to sit quietly and pretend to listen to all their stories. In the same vein, Billy Sunday's (the famous fundamentalist evangelist) widow, Ma Sunday was my baby sitter when I was one and two years old. As a young boy I remember having ice cream at Winona Lake Bible Conference in Indiana with my family and Billy Graham. So that is my confession of suspicious characters with whom I had early association because of my father's connections. 

Just two nights ago, I served on a panel presentation with a Mexican Mormon bishop/scholar, and a Mexican Catholic scholar on religion in Mexico, especially during the revolution. It was hard for me to get the conflict of the former days out of my mind. I am very sorry for the part of the tension I created by not stating my concerns and beliefs in a better and kinder manner. RevTestament said it well; I do have a few criticisms of LDS Christians and the Church's form of Christianity, but I have far more positives to say about them (you) and I do so on a regular basis! I hope we can put this behind us and move on. Why isn't there an annual mormondialogue.org annual conference so we can all get together some time and meet as real live people? Here we are at Wednesday's conference. I think we all look too serious!

 

Panelplus.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I am not a super long term poster here, and I hesitate to intervene here. I do not wish to open something back up which I feel needs to close. However, I wish to speak as someone who respects and loves both of you as a brother in Christ.  It would be best if you stop contending. Robert, while I respect you immensely you are prone to be opinionated, imho of course, and have accused me of being incorrect, and the like. I basically always have reasons for my positions unless I say it is just my opinion, and can offer evidence to refute you, but sometimes I just let you be right, because tbh, it is just no worth the effort. 

As someone who takes occasional pokes at the theologies of my Christian brothers, I feel I understand at least some of Navidad's frustration. He feels LDS Christians are a little duplicitous here. However, i never make the claim that I don't criticize other Christians. I freely admit that I do, and Navidad I feel is just being honest about it. In turn Navidad has a few criticisms of LDS Christians and the Church's form of Christianity. Guess what? So do I as well. Does that make me an "anti-Mormon?" I hope not. If you can't take a little honest criticism Robert, perhaps you are banging your head around in the wrong forum. In my observation you certainly make criticisms of your own. Rather than continuing in a parlay of accusations, I suggest sitting down and considering each grievance, and whether they can clearly be seen as misrepresenting facts. If you continue to feel they do, then maybe just those points can be addressed as to whether misrepresentation is actually occurring. That is the only time I personally feel the charge of anti-Mormon can accurately be assessed.

I say this in the hopes of not stirring up animosity but that we can step back and appreciate honest criticism for what it is, rather than accusing others of making false statements. I love you both for your stalwart defense of what you believe to be the true gospel of Christ, and hope that any further exchange can be in this spirit, and I commend brother Navidad for apologizing for any unintended offense, because I believe it shows his true intent - I hope that is no longer in question.

Hi, Rev.

It makes no difference to me at all whether someone agrees or disagrees with me, and I do not at all see a disagreement here about the nature of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  What was at issue were a spate of objectively false claims about history and people who have participated in that history.  When, for example, I have had any disagreements with Rob Bowman or 3DOP, they have always been civil and good natured, even though each is an unbeliever in LDS theology.  Neither of them see it as necessary to bear false witness about history or theology.  That tells us about their character, and we remain friends.  How do you suppose that is possible?  I have spent my life in close relations with non-LDS people and institutions, and have found them deeply respectful and honorable in their comments about my beliefs, and I the same toward them.  That is called mutual respect, and it is a very effective basis for civility and good relations.  When someone (anyone) decides to breach those basic rules, I believe it is time to say so openly.  Navidad's response is an angry one, of course, but in no instance did he provide evidence to back his false claims.  I, on the other hand, was very specific in naming people and sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...