Jump to content

Bitton's Guildelines To Recognizing Anti-mormon Books...


cinepro

Recommended Posts

The fair site has an article by David Bitton, where he lists some guidelines for "Spotting an Anti-Mormon Book".

According to the article, a reader may use these guidelines to judge whether a book is truly "anti-Mormon", and once a book has been found guilty, he offers the following observation:

A book that is clearly anti-Mormon should have a sticker on the dust jacket: Caveat lector--let the reader beware. I say this not because I wish only simple, saccharine works about the Church but because it is always regrettable when people are misinformed. Anti-Mormon works demonize their subjects. They leave a flawed, tainted picture. They mislead.

This is not a new suggestion from me, but I think it is an important one, so I raise it again.

If we should not trust anti-mormon books because they misinform and mislead, what should be our attitude towards pro-mormon scholarship that may also misinform and mislead?

Keep in mind that Bitton's points are to be used so a reader can pre-judge a book and discount it out of hand; presumably that pre-judgment will discourage a reader from reading it at all, or believing anything contained therin should they peer between the covers.

Can believing writers (and especially things published by the Church itself) fall victim to similar biases? Should a reader be wary when perusing a pro-Mormon work?

Here are how Bitton's guidelines could be applied to pro-Mormon works:

Consider the Publisher

Even before looking at a specific work, we have some preliminary indications based on publisher.

Books published by Deseret Book Company, Horizon, and other companies, as well as articles appearing in BYU Studies, Church magazines, and Meridian Magazine can safely assumed to be pro-Mormon. The explanation is quite simple: the editors who make decisions whether to publish in these venues reject manuscripts that don't support the Church. This list of friendly publishers and periodicals is by no means complete.

To be sure, the identity of the publisher is not the final determinant of whether a book is pro-Mormon, but it can be a preliminary indicator. We can assume that publications of the the LDS Church and Deseret Book, for example, are pro-Mormon at least in intent. When those who see it as their life's mission to support and build faith give speeches or produce writings, their words are in whole or in part predictably pro-Mormon.

Other Indications

Moving past the publisher, here are some things to look for in books about the Latter-day Saints.

* Inaccuracy. Start reading at the beginning. Or turn to a chapter about which you already know something. If you come across statements that are simply inaccurate or leave a misleading impression, start counting. One or two of these on nonessential matters can perhaps be condoned. But if they accumulate, if you find yourself saying, "Oh, no" or "What?" or "Oh, no," time after time, the chances are that the book is pro-Mormon. It is amazing how some of these writers think they can get away with falsehood and inaccuracy. Preferring to believe them sincere, we are left with the explanation that they are careless and have not bothered to have their pages checked by someone in the know.

*Telling us what we believe. The ground rule here should be to let each person say what he believes. You may speak for yourself. I will speak for myself. All too often, our supporters like to state our beliefs for us. If they quote from past sermons or writings, they do so without regard for context. They find a quotation of the 1870s, or the 1850s, or the 1830s and change the context or meaning.

* Principle of selection. Since it is impossible to include everything, any author selects what he wishes to include. If a book about Latter-day Saints shows a strong preference for positive information, I don't mind considering it pro-Mormon. This does not mean that only brittle, negative narratives are allowed. The best histories are true to the complexity of life. While not excluding positive traits and good deeds, they do not try to redeem a whole people by examples that are rare and unrepresentative. Is the reported incident typical or is it unusual and exceptional? One who wanders down the street of Mormon history picking up a "miracle" here, a "vision" there , whose whole interest is in such things, who shows no interest in complexity or ambiguity is your typical pro-Mormon writer.

* Interpretation. After deciding what to include, writers explain what it means. Or by the way they tell the story they imply an interpretation. Situations could be complicated. Individuals with tempers and poor judgment sometimes said things or did things we are not proud of. The point of view of outsiders, even if skewed, itself becomes part of the historical reality and should be recognized and, if possible, understood. But if a book misses no opportunity to cast Mormons as saints, if it always shows the Church, its leaders, its people, and its beliefs in the best possible light, it deserves the pro-Mormon label.

*Private life of the author. Since good books can be written by bad people and bad books by good people, I prefer to evaluate a book in its own terms. But if the author participates in pro-Mormon activities, attends the Church, or engages in behavior absolutely up to Church standards, his portrayal of Mormons and their history will probably be warm and friendly. If he presents himself as a Latter-day Saint and in fact he attends meetings every week, if he is in the know because he comes from pioneer stock, we have a right to be suspicious. If he indulges in snide, disrespectful, cruel comments about critical scholars and people who publish non-complimentary scholarship, we should not be surprised if his book is pro-Mormon. I am always happy to be proved wrong in such expectations, but when an author makes no effort to hide his adoration of the Church, his predisposition is hard to ignore.

Yes, this is another "but they do it too" thread. I can't help but wonder why I'm supposed to question or ignore "anti-Mormon" writings, but then get criticized if I do the same for pro-Mormon publications and claims. Or how members of the Church can so easily see the flaws in anti-Mormon works, but be so blind to the flaws in many pro-Mormon books.

Link to comment

...

If we should not trust anti-mormon books because they misinform and mislead, what should be our attitude towards pro-mormon scholarship that may also misinform and mislead?

...

'Tis an old-school question, Pilgrim.

The question for the modern era, is "Does the scholarship support the conclusions?"

And that standard will have to be applied to books and articles written by members and non-members

as well. I am currenly researching MMM and have come to feel a good deal of sympathy and respect

for Juanita Brooks --- even though I believe her own scholarship could have easily led her to voice

a more "contra" set of conclusions than she did in her famous book.

On the other hand, I also have a good deal of respect for Will Bagley and his research ---- even though

I believe his own scholarship could have easily led him to voice a LESS "contra" set of conclusions.

At any rate, the old paradigm of Sandra Tanner vs Joseph Fielding Smith is dead and gone, for any

of us have both a testimony of the biblical faith and an education beyond junior high school.

Uncle Dale

.

Link to comment

What i get from Bitton's words is not that i should NOT read the work-but that i should take time to investigate the claims made in the work.

Since many (though not all) anti-mormon writers believe that 'lying for the Lord' is acceptable-i think the idea that we should check out what they say is completely fair.

:P

Link to comment

Apparently I missed the meeting in which I was to be told that I should be "blind to the flaws of pro-Mormon books." I've been reading the FARMS Review for 19 years, and I have never noticed any hesitation in criticizing pro-LDS books for their lapses and excesses. I've even noticed noticed such figures as Nibley, Welch, Tvedtnes, and Sorenson getting criticisms there. I myself have often thought that Desert Book ought to have a sign above their offerings that says "Let the buyer beware." But FARMS has never granted anyone a free pass just because they are believers.

The problem with anti-LDS stuff is not a matter of avoiding exposure but preparation. Am I prepared? Do I know the scriptures and the first hand accounts well enough to know when an author is misquoting texts, or neglecting important contexts? Do I notice when Ronald Huggins, for example, is neglecting important early, eye-witness accounts, and building his case on late rumors? When I read Brodie, or the Tanners, or Abanes, or Walter Martin, or Vogel and Metcalfe, or Owen and Mosser, or whomever, am I approaching the encounter with some meaningful preparation, or am I just engaging in a bit of spiritual masochism, anxious to prove that I am personally dripping with so much honesty and integrity that I can face the horrible, faith corroding truth without flinching? When I read Grant Palmer, for example, am I blindly taking him as a guide into a new world, or do I know enough to be able to compare his take against a comparable, or better body of knowledge. If I'm reading John Charles Duffy's survey of LDS apologetics, and see that he has actually made the amazing effort to footnote every allegedly rude comment a FARMS writer has made, do I know enough to be able to judge for myself whether that is actually representative, or merely some self-serving cherry picking? When I read Duffy's denounciation of verbal violence, do I shudder with disgust, agreeing puppet-like with the emotional payload he strives for in applying such labels, or do I also consider

not only my own readings of those allegedly violent texts, but also the implications of the small print in the cartoons which illustrate his essay, noting where nearly all of the cartoons say "idea suggested by John Charles Duffy?" If someone writes a long essay, claiming to offer an objective assessment of LDS apologetics, do I consider it honest when the very last page of that essay comes round to admitting that as a non-believer the author dismisses the work of FARMS as a matter of course, or, do I think the place for that kind of integrity is the first page, since that opinion will color the selection, emphasis, and context, of everything that follows? And am I the sort of person who is willing to find something of value even in a flawed book or essay, from someone I disagree with, or do I only want to be stroked and re-enforced?

When someone tries to "poison the well" of LDS apologetics, do I know enough to recognize the tactic? Since paradigms are created based on the way one generalizes from which examples, do I know enough to be able to recognize when someone is making unfair generalizations? Do I know enough about rhetoric to see what is happening? Do I know enough about the pragmatic problems of claims of "objectivity" to recognize when an author lacks the self-reflection to realize just how much their own attitudes affect their research and conclusions? Do I know how to recognize what actually endows any account, pro or con, with actual authority, rather than just the appearance of such?

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Link to comment

Cinepro:

Part of the flaw in your approach is that comparing anti-Mormon to pro-Mormon literature is not an apples to apples comparison.

And for the purposes of this discussion, there is no fence sitting, neutral LDS literature. That should be obvious.

Anti-Mormon literature, by its very nature, is flawed. Its primary intent is to deceive and to tear down. Real intentions of the literature are rarely stated up front. There is no balanced anti-Mormon literature out there on the market that I can find.

What you consider pro-Mormon literature, however, can be classified far more broadly, from a variety of angles. It may, or may not be balanced. It may, or may not be accurate. It may or may not be recognized by the Church itself. Authors may or may not be members of the Church. They may or may not have the objective of building up the Church. This overall range of character of pro-Mormon literature is far more broad and rich than anti-Mormon literature.

Hence, while anti-Mormon literature can be accurately categorized and recognized as such, the same techniques do not work well when it comes to pro-Mormon literature. Other critical evaluations must be applied to the pro-Mormon category than those you modified from Bitton's article. Attempts to assert some kind of moral equivalence between anti-Mormon and pro-Mormon literature are deeply flawed. The two genres just simply are not the same - in perspective, in motivations, and in tactics.

Link to comment

Perhaps I could phrase the question this way:

Should pro-LDS books be approached with the same degree of scrutinization

and skeptical-ness that Bitton suggests for anti-Mormon claims?

No -- I think not -- at least not within the context of faith-promotion.

For true scholars and seekers after truth, the choice may be so self-evident that we need tell

them nothing about what they should do. In many cases they will run up against churchly counsel

to avoid "the negative" and to seek after "the positive," -- and they may have to refuse such counsel.

It is a slippery slope -- and, anti-Mormon that I am, I still recommend prayer, fasting and careful

consideration of where such enquiry might eventually lead.

Avoiding such "scrutinization" of the volumes on sale at Deseret Books might be well advised

in some cases.

The ever unpredictable, Uncle Dale

.

Link to comment

Perhaps I could phrase the question this way:

Should pro-LDS books be approached with the same degree of scrutinization and skeptical-ness that Bitton suggests for anti-Mormon claims?

All works should be approached with care.

To suggest in any way, however, that Davis Bitton's biography of George Q. Cannon or Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling can seriously be considered the pro-Mormon mirror image of something like Dr. Ankerberg and Dr. Dr. Weldon's anti-Mormon book Behind the Mask of Mormonism, or that the FARMS/Maxwell Institute film Journey of Faith is analogous to Ed Decker's film The God Makers, would be completely wrong-headed. Anti-Mormonism is a very specific genre of propaganda.

Link to comment

I am picky of who I read not as picky as what I read. I see anti mormons saying the Church is not true because Orson Pratt did such and such whereas Mormon historians who have taken classes in history are saying whether the Church is true or not here is the story. History is not or should not be searching for the accuracy of truth claims. I never read Bushman in RSR saying "Oh by the way in my book the Church is true so you better repent!" No he said this is the way I read the available documents to tell what happened.

Link to comment
The fair site has an article by David Bitton, where he lists some guidelines for "Spotting an Anti-Mormon Book".

So it does. Oh, I notice you didn't provide a link to it; an oversight, I'm sure. After all, you couldn't possibly want to get your licks in before people have read what you are attacking, could you?

So, for those who are interested, here it is.

According to the article, a reader may use these guidelines to judge whether a book is truly "anti-Mormon", and once a book has been found guilty, he offers the following observation:
A book that is clearly anti-Mormon should have a sticker on the dust jacket: Caveat lector--let the reader beware. I say this not because I wish only simple, saccharine works about the Church but because it is always regrettable when people are misinformed. Anti-Mormon works demonize their subjects. They leave a flawed, tainted picture. They mislead.

This is not a new suggestion from me, but I think it is an important one, so I raise it again.

If we should not trust anti-mormon books because they misinform and mislead, what should be our attitude towards pro-mormon scholarship that may also misinform and mislead?

Has that been shown to happen?

Or is it merely an empty accusation?

Keep in mind that Bitton's points are to be used so a reader can pre-judge a book and discount it out of hand;

Really?

I have read the article in question. It nowhere suggests that the proper response to an anti-Mormon book is to "discount it out of hand." You appear to have fabricated that out of whole cloth.

Why?

presumably that pre-judgment will discourage a reader from reading it at all, or believing anything contained therin should they peer between the covers.

Yes, your conclusions are usually mere presumptions. However, all but two of Bitton's guidelines for determining whether or not a book is anti-Mormon require peering between the covers. "Start reading at the beginning," he says, and look for "Inaccuracy," "Telling us what we believe," the author's guiding "Principle of selection" and the "Interpretation" s/he applies to the data. You might know of some way to ascertain these things without any attempt to "peer between the covers," but Bitton, a first-class scholar, did not.

Can believing writers (and especially things published by the Church itself) fall victim to similar biases? Should a reader be wary when perusing a pro-Mormon work?

Of course. An author's biases, preconceptions, ideological commitments etc. are at all times relevant, and we should be aware of them. The critical point you are working so very hard to obfuscate is that Latter-day Saint authors are almost universally candid about theirs. Anti-Mormons, though, go to great lengths to try to disguise theirs. We see this demonstrated daily in this very forum. Anti-Mormon posters vehemently, even indignantly, deny their ideological orientation, and get very upset when others try to encourage them to come out of the closet and be proud of who they are.

Very few anti-Mormons are prepared to admit it. I wouldn't mind a dollar for every time I have seen the mantra "I'm not anti-Mormon, I'm pro-truth" in this forum. There is another forum, run under heavy-handed partisan censorship, in which it is an apparent rule violation to even mention anti-Mormonism in any connection, so hysterically terrified is the resident Grand Inquisitor that someone might suspect what he's up to.

Here are how Bitton's guidelines could be applied to pro-Mormon works:

And as you know, this is a complete waste of time and bandwidth. As you know, pro-LDS works admit that they are what they are; it is anti-Mormon writings that try to cover up their agenda.

Yes, this is another "but they do it too" thread. I can't help but wonder why I'm supposed to question or ignore "anti-Mormon" writings, but then get criticized if I do the same for pro-Mormon publications and claims. Or how members of the Church can so easily see the flaws in anti-Mormon works, but be so blind to the flaws in many pro-Mormon books.

None of which was the point of Bitton's article, was it?

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

I agree with others that any writing, be it pro or anti Mormon ought to be examined critically. With that said, I think one can definitely draw distinctions between literature whose primary intent is to shape perception and one that is designed to deliver information or even make an argument from within a certain belief paradigm. My impression of the vast majority of anti-Mormon literature is that perception-shaping, and especially negative perception-shaping seem to be the primary point of the exercise and any didactic or informational aspects seem to be secondary or even incidental to that primary purpose. Hence the selective quoting, posturing about terminology etc. Granted, I am sure there are plenty of examples of this same sort of thing from within Mormon circles, but from the perspective of those who are already in the LDS faith they are not all that significant, maybe other than being a waste of time. So, from wthin that LDS perspective, it makes sense to have more selective filtering and some of these rules of thumb for anti-Mormon literature than for positive, but perhaps poor quality literature regarding ideas to which one is already favorably predisposed.

Link to comment
Perhaps I could phrase the question this way:

Should pro-LDS books be approached with the same degree of scrutinization and skeptical-ness that Bitton suggests for anti-Mormon claims?

I agree with DCP; all works should be approached with care.

However, anti-Mormon writings all share standard characteristics of deception, mischaracterization, etc. Skepticism towards the genre is appropriate as a general rule.

Pro-Mormon writings are a mixed bag, as I noted above. Some are excellent; others are not so good, for a variety of reasons. Hence, from my experience, I approach anti-Mormon literature as guilty until proven innocent. It's simply been a verifiable trend, for me, that it tends to be deceptive. Pro-Mormon literature has to be approached differently, with a somewhat more open and searching attitude, and a willingness to keep the good stuff and pass over the bad.

Link to comment

The fair site has an article by David Bitton, where he lists some guidelines for "Spotting an Anti-Mormon Book".

According to the article, a reader may use these guidelines to judge whether a book is truly "anti-Mormon", and once a book has been found guilty, he offers the following observation:

This is not a new suggestion from me, but I think it is an important one, so I raise it again.

*snip*

Well said, Cinepro.

Those who would invoke the God Makers film, at this point, it would seem, are merely trying to blunt the force of the quite obvious critique.

Where the God Makers film is being shown (to this day, no doubt), or, worse yet, God Makers II, critical thinking is probably not present in abundance.

Your analysis is absolutely spot on, to my mind.

I note in passing that neither of the works DCP mentioned were actually mentioned, or implied, by you. And, so, to suggest that you actually suggested them "in any way" is, to a reasonable reader, an instance of "reading" (nay, interpreting) your post, in the worst possible light, by and for the home team.

Or, pray tell, were you implicitly invoking Decker's film in your post? If so, I didn't catch it.

But, then, I'm a bit slow.

CKS

Link to comment
Those who would invoke the God Makers film, at this point, it would seem, are merely trying to blunt the force of the quite obvious critique.

Since I mentioned The God Makers, that would be me, I suppose.

You're welcome, of course, to speculate as to my motives. Even if, as here, you're utterly and completely wrong.

The God Makers film is precisely the kind of thing I intend when I refer to "anti-Mormon" materials. (I don't use the term anti-Mormon to describe legitimate scholarship, even if it's critical of my faith.)

I note in passing that neither of the works DCP mentioned were actually mentioned, or implied, by you. And, so, to suggest that you actually suggested them "in any way" is, to a reasonable reader, an instance of "reading" (nay, interpreting) your post, in the worst possible light, by and for the home team.

You're welcome, of course, to suggest disingenuousness on my part. Even if, as here, you're totally and absolutely wrong.

As noted above, the God Makers film is precisely the kind of thing I intend when I refer to "anti-Mormon" materials. I might also point to materials published by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Bill McKeever, and the late "Dr." Walter Martin as specimens of the genre.

There is, really, nothing comparable in Mormonism.

If cinepro intends something else by "anti-Mormon," he's entirely free to specify what he has in mind so that we can discuss it. However, just so you know, I don't consider legitimate scholarship anti-Mormon, even if it's critical of my faith. (Did I already mention that?)

Link to comment

If cinepro intends something else by "anti-Mormon" he's entirely free to specify it so that we can discuss it. However, just so you know, I don't consider legitimate scholarship anti-Mormon, even if it's critical of my faith. (Did I already mention that?)

No, you actually didn't mention that. You mentioned Behind the Mask of Mormonism and the God Makers film.

You specified. I was discussing your specifications. If you'd like to draw a wider net, then, I suppose we could discuss that.

CKS

Link to comment
Well said, Cinepro.

Actually it was a rather poor piece of partisan propaganda.

Those who would invoke the God Makers film, at this point, it would seem, are merely trying to blunt the force of the quite obvious critique.

That's false, of course, but instead of merely cheerleading for Cinepro, perhaps you'd like to actually post something substantive.

Where the God Makers film is being shown (to this day, no doubt), or, worse yet, God Makers II, critical thinking is probably not present in abundance.

Nor is it particularly obvious in CARM or "Concerned Christians Incorporated" or in the pages of certain polemical tabloids we could mention.

Your analysis is absolutely spot on, to my mind.

Yes, we get it. You love the fact that he's stuck it to the defenders of the Saints.

The fact that valid and unaddressed distinctions have been raised between anti and pro-LDS writings, thus rendering Cinepro's smarmy bit of smart-aleckism moot, is something you'd rather not address, I take it?

I note in passing that neither of the works DCP mentioned were actually mentioned, or implied, by you. And, so, to suggest that you actually suggested them "in any way" is, to a reasonable reader, an instance of "reading" (nay, interpreting) your post, in the worst possible light, by and for the home team.

Or, pray tell, were you implicitly invoking Decker's film in your post? If so, I didn't catch it.

But, then, I'm a bit slow.

CKS

Cinepro, of course, did not mention anything in particular. He was making a sloppy and ham-fisted parody of a rather valid article. But Bitton's article addresses anti-Mormon propaganda as a literary genre; and since Cinepro thought pro-LDS scholarship was a parallel genre, or at least treated it as such, it seems both fair and reasonable to compare representative samples.

Because if there is one safe bet to be had in it is this: that had LDS scholars not done such a thorough job of demonstrating what complete and utter dreck Ed Decker's entire output has been, you and others like you would still be praising it to the skies.

How do I know this?

Because that's what you all did for just as long as you possibly could. Only when it became obvious that it was sinking your collective credibility, did you collectively start trying to put some daylight between it and you.

Q: What's the difference between the level of respect afforded The God Makers and that afforded the latest "stuff" in anti-Mormon circles?

A: The passage of time. Nothing else.

Incidentally, since you are so uncritically admiring of Cinepro's clumsy polemic, does that mean it's good enough for the Evangel?

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment
No, you actually didn't mention that.

I actually did mention that, in the very post in which I mentioned that I might perhaps have mentioned it.

You mentioned Behind the Mask of Mormonism and the God Makers film.

Yes, I did. Why? Because, as I've explained, that's precisely the sort of stuff that I intend when I speak of anti-Mormon materials.

You specified. I was discussing your specifications.

Actually, you really haven't. Do you want to say something about the effusions of Ed Decker and of Dr. Ankerberg and Dr. Dr. Weldon?

If you'd like to draw a wider net, then, I suppose we could discuss that.

What "wider net" do you think I want to draw?

I've been quite specific about what I have in mind.

Link to comment

Because if there is one safe bet to be had in it is this: that had LDS scholars not done such a thorough job of demonstrating what complete and utter dreck Ed Decker's entire output has been, you and others like you would still be praising it to the skies.

How do I know this?

Because that's what you all did for just as long as you possibly could. Only when it became obvious that it was sinking your collective credibility, did you collectively start trying to put some daylight between it and you.

Yes. I take all my intellectual cues from LDS scholars. And I avoided doing so for as long as I possibly could.

Indeed, how do you know this?

Because I don't have an individually-functioning brain. And you understand me quite better than I understand myself, apparently.

Don't impose your herd mentality on me. I laughed out loud the first time I read Decker's book: "Mormo" the demon? Then, it really all made sense to me.

Your responses would be laughable if they weren't made in all seriousness.

CKS

Link to comment

I've been quite specific about what I have in mind.

Exactly. Again, you mentioned Behind the Mask of Mormonism and the God Makers film.

Nowhere and in no way were these sources mentioned by Cinepro. You were specific. He wasn't.

How 'bout responding generally to the OP? Rather than with your sugar-baby anti-Mormon exemplars?

Again, you've been specific, not the OP. Strawmen are rather par for the course here, though.

How 'bout a straight response to the OP, without adducing anything specific (in line with the OP)?

No Behind the Mask of Mormonism and the God Makers? What about books and articles that are critical of the LDS religion by ex-Mo's? I assume you think Vogel and Metcalfe books are perfectly acceptable for general LDS consumption? They're scholarly, no? They disagree with your position, yes?

No stickers for those books, then, I suppose?

Would you encourage your parishioners to read them? Why or why not?

CKS

Link to comment
If we should not trust anti-mormon books because they misinform and mislead, what should be our attitude towards pro-mormon scholarship that may also misinform and mislead?

There you go again....

You simply can't judge between the two the same.

You can't judge an anti-mormon book bearing falsely in basically every subject to a mormon book that follows the NORMAL rules of scholarship who simply might make a small error or two, omit a thing here or there for whatever reason etc.

Your trying to compare the 99.9% error ratio of anti-mormonism to the 1% error ratio of LDS scholar's and every other good scholarship on the planet.

THERE IS NO COMPARISON!!!! :P

Link to comment
Yes. I take all my intellectual cues from LDS scholars. And I avoided doing so for as long as I possibly could.

Indeed, how do you know this?

Because I don't have an individually-functioning brain. And you understand me quite better than I understand myself, apparently.

Apparently not.

I thought that saying "collective" and "collectively" in the same sentence would constitute a broad enough hint to enable you (CKS, the individual) to figure out that I was speaking about anti-Mormons collectively, and that I was using the plural, and not the singular, "you." Apparently I was wrong; apparently it was too subtle a hint.

Don't impose your herd mentality on me. I laughed out loud the first time I read Decker's book: "Mormo" the demon? Then, it really all made sense to me.

Your responses would be laughable if they weren't made in all seriousness.

Whereas, your rather sycophantic response to Cinepro's silly "critique" is funny only because it was made in all seriousness.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...