Owen & Mosser - Their Words/their Views

[Phinehas]

Agreeing with Owen's and Mosser's assessment of LDS theology doesn't absolve one of antiMormonism. An antiMormon in my book is one who lies, negatively sensationalizes, or otherwise applies yellow journalism when reporting about the LDS Church. I have no problem if one claims that I am not a Christian or authentic Christian etc. I do not consider those to be an antiMormon statements. Afterall, by claiming that we are the only true Church, we essentially have relagated you to the world of paganism, the church of the Devil, and the Telestial Kingdom, possibly after a stint in hell (I personally think that stint is reserved for the unrepentant and wicked).

Now having said that, I personally do not know if such is the case (antiMormon) with regards to you because I haven't read your publications/ podcasts/ whatever it is you do. However, there are others who I trust who consider you to be an antiMormon so you'll just have to accept the fact that I will go along with them on that for now.

What I do know from your posts is that you are essentially a Biblical illiterate and know little of early Christian history. But the same can be said for most evangelical Christians who come up to do battle with LDS theology. They are, as Owen and Mosser seem to have realized, ill-prepared to deal with the LDS Biblical juggernaut and it's related scholarship.

My assessment is that no amount of study and preparation can refute LDS doctrine with regards to the Bible conflicting with it because the prophets and apostles therein are members of the same Church I am.

ROTFLOL!

This site?!?

I know of many who have come here with scholarship intact who have somehow been "banned' This is not a site that looks for truth.

This is a site for back-slapping and bandwagon jumping.. Congratulating each other when ad homs are made!

You people need to grow up

You need to apologize for your apologetics

self-fulfilling prophecy? i'd hate for you to be proven wrong, so take a day off~hermes

[Heartleap]

CFR that we do not worship Christ.

Lehi

LDS have told me that they worship the Father because Jesus did not want to be worshiped when he was on earth.

LDS have very few songs that tell Jesus just how much they love him or praise his name. I have never seen an LDS person come before God and worship him, the way I see people worship him in Christian Churches. There are different styles of worship I know, but watching people fold thier arms and fall asleep in sacrament meeting is not my idea of honoring God. Especially when it's the leadership...

Heartleap...

[zerinus]

If you agree 100% to the above statement, how come the LDS worship the Father and not Christ if he is the Eternal God?

Heartleap...

We do worship Jesus.

zerinus

[LeSellers]

LDS have told me that they worship the Father because Jesus did not want to be worshiped when he was on earth.

The closest thing I have ever seen to this is that we pray to the Father in the name of Jesus. But in the Book of Mormon, there is at least one instance of His followers praying to Him, directly. It's not doctrine, in any manner, that we do not pray to Jesus, and it is definitely not doctrine that we do not worship Him.

LDS have very few songs that tell Jesus just how much they love him or praise his name. I have never seen an LDS person come before God and worship him, the way I see people worship him in Christian Churches. There are different styles of worship I know, but watching people fold thier arms and fall asleep in sacrament meeting is not my idea of honoring God. Especially when it's the leadership...

Peter fell asleep while Jesus was praying in Gethsemane, and Eutychus did while Paul was preaching. It is an ancient tradition, and most churches follow it.

As to the number of Hymns we sing in the praise of our Savior, I'll do a count. But the number is in the hundreds. One wonders how you missed them.

Lehi

[Verdad]

You are anti-mormon. You wrote an anti-mormon book. I dont see the point of debating you on these threads just to satisfy your own ego. If you don't want to be considered anti-mormon. Dont write crappy books attacking the Church.

Do I understand this correctly? The church is not to be reproached even when it is wrong? The church is above being looked at critically? Is the church incapable of withstanding scrutiny? Are those who might do these things then fair game for name calling and judgment. Are opinions not allowed here? If there is no reason for questioning the church then I would think that members would be able to smile, shake their head and laugh. Why is it necessary to be so mean spirited and vengeful as I see members being here? Where is the spirit of Christian love and kindness? Does Mormonism not teach that? It makes one think that there is some truth that is being hidden that the members would attack others in order to hide it. What is the reason for this strange and questionable behavior?

[Daniel Peterson]

Do I understand this correctly?

My provisional answer is No, you don't.

The church is not to be reproached even when it is wrong? The church is above being looked at critically? Is the church incapable of withstanding scrutiny? Are those who might do these things then fair game for name calling and judgment. Are opinions not allowed here?

I'm not sure how you derive all that -- nor, really, any of that -- from "You are anti-mormon. You wrote an anti-mormon book. I dont see the point of debating you on these threads just to satisfy your own ego. If you don't want to be considered anti-mormon. Dont write crappy books attacking the Church."

If there is no reason for questioning the church then I would think that members would be able to smile, shake their head and laugh. Why is it necessary to be so mean spirited and vengeful as I see members being here? Where is the spirit of Christian love and kindness? Does Mormonism not teach that? It makes one think that there is some truth that is being hidden that the members would attack others in order to hide it. What is the reason for this strange and questionable behavior?

Don't be silly. This board is a place for religious discussion, where people (typically Mormons) routinely find their most sacred beliefs under attack. It's scarcely surprising that they don't always take such attacks kindly, but this is far and away not the worst such message board on the web.

I've just looked through your previous posts, and I can't say that they particularly radiate the spirit of Christian love, either, so the complacent assumption of superior righteousness isn't overly convincing.

Have a nice evening.

[Verdad]

My provisional answer is No, you don't.

I'm not sure how you derive all that -- nor, really, any of that -- from "You are anti-mormon. You wrote an anti-mormon book. I dont see the point of debating you on these threads just to satisfy your own ego. If you don't want to be considered anti-mormon. Dont write crappy books attacking the Church."

Don't be silly. This board is a place for religious discussion, where people (typically Mormons) routinely find their most sacred beliefs under attack. It's scarcely surprising that they don't always take such attacks kindly, but this is far and away not the worst such message board on the web.

I've just looked through your previous posts, and I can't say that they particularly radiate the spirit of Christian love, either, so the complacent assumption of superior righteousness isn't overly convincing.

Have a nice evening.

Really Daniel? I read my previous posts just to remind myself. I found questions and some truth that you may not like pointed out but nothing less than Christian. I didn't make fun of anyone here. I didn't call any one names. I made no personal accusations or remarks. So I see that I have come under attack because I can't always agree with the church or its members. Your first reaction was to point a personal finger at me. Very telling, I would say.

As for other sites. We aren't talking about other sites, are we? We were talking about this LDS sanctioned site. Did you realize that that kind of bait and switch technique is typical of Mormon posters everywhere? If they don't like a topic, they will point out that they aren't so bad because some one else is worse. Do you really want to be known as just not the worst of everything? The Mormon habit of trying to switch the focus of attention to someone else is......well rather reminiscent of grade school. "He did it first!" Doesn't it really matter who did it first. Two wrongs don't make a right. You guys are representing your church here. You have no idea who may be lurking in an effort to find out what Mormonism is really all about. It might be a potential member that gets scared away by all the aggression and finger pointing. Doesn't look good. I mention this because apparently many of the members who post here have not thought of it.

[Aquilifer]

Really Daniel? I read my previous posts just to remind myself. I found questions and some truth that you may not like pointed out but nothing less than Christian. I didn't make fun of anyone here. I didn't call any one names. I made no personal accusations or remarks. So I see that I have come under attack because I can't always agree with the church or its members. Your first reaction was to point a personal finger at me. Very telling, I would say.

As for other sites. We aren't talking about other sites, are we? We were talking about this LDS sanctioned site. Did you realize that that kind of bait and switch technique is typical of Mormon posters everywhere? If they don't like a topic, they will point out that they aren't so bad because some one else is worse. Do you really want to be known as just not the worst of everything? The Mormon habit of trying to switch the focus of attention to someone else is......well rather reminiscent of grade school. "He did it first!" Doesn't it really matter who did it first. Two wrongs don't make a right. You guys are representing your church here. You have no idea who may be lurking in an effort to find out what Mormonism is really all about. It might be a potential member that gets scared away by all the aggression and finger pointing. Doesn't look good. I mention this because apparently many of the members who post here have not thought of it.

1) You are not under attack. Your straining to take a statement by a poster and somehow spin it as saying that the LDS Church is above reproach is under attack.

2) This site is not sanctioned by the LDS Church.

3) Speaking of agression and finger pointing, I love the sweeping generalizations of Mormons as juvenile deceivers.

4) It's rather disingenuous to make accusations of bait-and-switch considering the wild interpretation you pulled out of the statement that Abanes has written an anti-Mormon book. There is nothing that comes close to stating that the LDS Church is above criticism and reproach, and your attempt to spin it as such sounds very much like "agression and finger pointing" to me.

As the post in question states, don't write crappy books attacking the Church. The use of an adjective there is important, n'est-ce pas?

[LifeOnaPlate]

As for other sites. We aren't talking about other sites, are we? We were talking about this LDS sanctioned site.

This certainly isn't an LDS sanctioned site.

Did you realize that that kind of bait and switch technique is typical of Mormon posters everywhere?

Blanket statement much?

[wenglund]

I, personally, don't see much value in getting involved in the name/label game--whether in terms of arguing seemingly endlessly and counter-productively about affixing unwanted names/labels to certain individuals or groups or denying wanted names/labels to other individuals or groups.

Instead, I think we would all be better served to focus on determining the most viable way for us to become the very best people posssible and increase in joy and love, and striving together towards that end. After all, isn't that the intent and purpose of the gospel of Christ we each profess to espouse?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[soren]

CFR that we do not worship Christ.

Lehi

Here is a an article by a blogger that gives a pretty fair sampling of LDS teaching on the worship/reverence of Jesus. My opinion, which I think harmonizes the claims of the varying GAs is that Jesus is reverenced in a lesser way than the Father, but that this reverence in certain contexts can be called worship.

http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com/2008/05...ship-jesus.html

[Jason]

Was there a point to this thread, aside from saying "you have said you respect the scholarship of these people, they say you're not Christians - so nyah nyah!" - basically a juvenille "gotcha" trap?

[Verdad]

1) You are not under attack. Your straining to take a statement by a poster and somehow spin it as saying that the LDS Church is above reproach is under attack.

2) This site is not sanctioned by the LDS Church.

3) Speaking of agression and finger pointing, I love the sweeping generalizations of Mormons as juvenile deceivers.

4) It's rather disingenuous to make accusations of bait-and-switch considering the wild interpretation you pulled out of the statement that Abanes has written an anti-Mormon book. There is nothing that comes close to stating that the LDS Church is above criticism and reproach, and your attempt to spin it as such sounds very much like "agression and finger pointing" to me.

I consider Danial's accusation

I've just looked through your previous posts, and I can't say that they particularly radiate the spirit of Christian love, either, so the complacent assumption of superior righteousness isn't overly convincing.

to be an attack on my character.

I guess I meant sanctioned differently than you do. If the church didn't approve of your being here, you guys sure wouldn't be here. So perhaps the best word would have been approval.

I didn't say that Mormons were juvenile deceivers, you did. Please don't put words in my mouth. Could we call this spin since you guys seem to really like that word.

As for the church being above criticism and reproach, the following speaks for itself.

"Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the lord will bless you for it but you don't need to worry. The lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray."

LDS President Marion G. Romney (of the first presidency), quoting LDS President (and prophet) Heber J. Grant "Conference Report" Oct. 1960 p. 78

"I sat in this tabernacle some years ago as President Joseph Fielding Smith stood at this pulpit. It was the general priesthood meeting of April 1972, the last general conference before President Smith passed away. He said: 'There is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, or the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the lord'."

L. Aldin Porter of the Presidency of the First Quorum of Seventies (Ensign, Nov. 1994, p. 63)

"Follow your leaders who have been duly ordained and have been publicly sustained, and you will not be led astray."

Boyd K. Packer (General Conference, Oct. 1992; Ensign, Nov. 1992)

"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray."

President Wilford Woodruff (considered scripture as it is canonized at the end of the D&C)

[oats]

Please refer to OP and respond to that, if you wish to.

RA

Well, we can't respond our thoughts to the person who made the OP without being redirected and told to 'respond to the OP'. We cannot respond to Owen and Mosser, who are mentioned in the OP, because they did not ask anything, nor are they here to accept a response.

There are only so many ways a person can respond to an OP. People have offered various types of responses to please your delicate sensibilities, but you keep repeating 'please respond to the OP'. Well, I think I've figured out what you are looking for.

Dear Mr. 'It's become apparent that I can't say much of anything here without being tarred and feathered by preconceived notions, misconceptions, prejudice, bias, and to be honest, a rather troubling level of pure hate, anger, malice, disrespect, and juvenile name-calling. That's too bad. '

I love you name and your creator is annoying

Sincerely,

oats

[Bernard Gui]

Dear Richard:

Here's how I see things. Having been in on the ONUG debacle from its inception, I think I have

a fairly good handle on where you went wrong. You wrote what you thought would be the

book that would finally bring the LDS Church to its knees. It was to be a "true and complete

history of Mormonism...documented as meticulously as any scholarly work." It "triumphed in

bringing to light matters most religious leaders would rather leave buried." Indeed, we were

promised "a triumph of research and wisdom."

"Interested persons of every reading level will appreciate its content as well as its style."

Unfortunately, some Mormons were included in that group of interested persons, and some

were above the average reading level. Most of those were avid internet Mormons who had

put in a lot of effort confronting the issues you brought up.

I think you were genuinely surprised when they not only failed to surrender their faith to your supposed

invincible fire-power, but they actually took you to task for writing and promoting such a flawed

piece of historical fiction. Granted, you were a journalist, not a historian, but if you were going

to pose as the author of the most meticulously researched, true, and complete history of

Mormonism, you should have possessed the chops to back it up.

From the start, the Mormons poked giant holes in your book, From the yellow journalism, the

quote mining, the misquoting, omissions, internet references, the uncritical use of any source

so long as it was negative, to the sarcastic and flippant

treatment of LDS sacred beliefs as evidenced even in the chapter titles, the book was shown

not to be some sort of potent historical juggernaut but a caricature of serious historical writing.

The Mormon broadsides did irreparable damage to the work.

Finally, having been thoroughly debunked of any claim to serious scholarly writing,

it sank down into the murky depths of the dismal swamp of average anti-Mormon propaganda.

This was surely a hard blow for you to take, but to your credit you stuck around, defended it a bit, and

expressed interest in fixing up the tattered remnants for a second edition. To your credit, you

even extended yourself to attend a FAIR conference and make nice with some of your greatest

critics.

In the end, however, you could not admit that the book was as abysmal as it had been revealed to be.

Understandingly, it represented a lot of time and effort, but its failure to move the Mormons was

a great disappointment. I think you were also surprised at the ferocity of the LDS response.

So, what can we learn from this? If you had done what you did after you wrote the book (seeking

out LDS reaction) before you wrote the book, things might have turned out differently. Had you

taken the time to feel us out before dumping on us, we might have come to some sort of

understanding. Instead, we were dumped on and then when you came around to inspect the havoc,

you got a surprisingly dogged reception.

It's been no different this time around. ONUG did not destroy our church or our faith then,

and it hasn't improved with age. It's still representative of the worst of anti-Mormon writing.

I think you are capable of better things. Unfortunately, it seems to have become your tar-baby

so far as the Mormons are concerned. That you are still put off by the Mormon reaction to

it puzzles me.

Best wishes,

Bernard

[e=mc2]

Dear Richard:

Here's how I see things. Having been in on the ONUG debacle from its inception, I think I have

a fairly good handle on where you went wrong. You wrote what you thought would be the

book that would finally bring the LDS Church to its knees. It was to be a "true and complete

history of Mormonism...documented as meticulously as any scholarly work." It "triumphed in

bringing to light matters most religious leaders would rather leave buried." Indeed, we were

promised "a triumph of research and wisdom."

"Interested persons of every reading level will appreciate its content as well as its style."

Unfortunately, some Mormons were included in that group of interested persons, and some

were above the average reading level. Most of those were avid internet Mormons who had

put in a lot of effort confronting the issues you brought up.

I think you were genuinely surprised when they not only failed to surrender their faith to your supposed

invincible fire-power, but they actually took you to task for writing and promoting such a flawed

piece of historical fiction. Granted, you were a journalist, not a historian, but if you were going

to pose as the author of the most meticulously researched, true, and complete history of

Mormonism, you should have possessed the chops to back it up.

From the start, the Mormons poked giant holes in your book, From the yellow journalism, the

quote mining, the misquoting, omissions, internet references, the uncritical use of any source

so long as it was negative, to the sarcastic and flippant

treatment of LDS sacred beliefs as evidenced even in the chapter titles, the book was shown

not to be some sort of potent historical juggernaut but a caricature of serious historical writing.

The Mormon broadsides did irreparable damage to the work.

Finally, having been thoroughly debunked of any claim to serious scholarly writing,

it sank down into the murky depths of the dismal swamp of average anti-Mormon propaganda.

This was surely a hard blow for you to take, but to your credit you stuck around, defended it a bit, and

expressed interest in fixing up the tattered remnants for a second edition. To your credit, you

even extended yourself to attend a FAIR conference and make nice with some of your greatest

critics.

In the end, however, you could not admit that the book was as abysmal as it had been revealed to be.

Understandingly, it represented a lot of time and effort, but its failure to move the Mormons was

a great disappointment. I think you were also surprised at the ferocity of the LDS response.

So, what can we learn from this? If you had done what you did after you wrote the book (seeking

out LDS reaction) before you wrote the book, things might have turned out differently. Had you

taken the time to feel us out before dumping on us, we might have come to some sort of

understanding. Instead, we were dumped on and then when you came around to inspect the havoc,

you got a surprisingly dogged reception.

It's been no different this time around. ONUG did not destroy our church or our faith then,

and it hasn't improved with age. It's still representative of the worst of anti-Mormon writing.

I think you are capable of better things. Unfortunately, it seems to have become your tar-baby

so far as the Mormons are concerned. That you are still put off by the Mormon reaction to

it puzzles me.

Best wishes,

Bernard

Stimulating summary. I was in there on the original discussions and analysis of Richard's book, though I never bothered much to write any rebuttals because I was too busy with other things that interested me at that time. But I sure do remember the discussions! Wow they were fun.

[rabanes]

Dear Richard:

You will get your reply -- and so will FAIR. Keep your eyes scanning for a new thread -- I am guessing in about 1-2 weeks. Truth will always win out.

RA

[David Waltz]

Hi Soren,

Great link. Interestingly enough, it just so happens that I have a recent thread on â??Degrees of â??worshipâ?? in the Bibleâ? that you might find interesting:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/11/...p-in-bible.html

Grace and peace,

David

[zerinus]

You will get your reply -- and so will FAIR. Keep your eyes scanning for a new thread -- I am guessing in about 1-2 weeks. Truth will always win out.

RA

Hmmmm Your "truth" has been distinctly lacking.

zerinus

[urroner]

You will get your reply -- and so will FAIR. Keep your eyes scanning for a new thread -- I am guessing in about 1-2 weeks. Truth will always win out.

RA

Several years ago, many on this board will remember a certain poster who was very critical of the Church and who told us that he was going to write a book that explain how the Book of Mormon was written with the help of many highly educated men. I can't remember his name, but he said it was coming out soon and now, many years later, I am still waiting for that book to come out and expose the truth behind the Book of Mormon and why it was too masterful to be written by an ignorant young man.

As with this poster Richard, I promise you that I won't hold my breath and not meaning to insult you.

[rabanes]

as with this poster Richard, I promise you that I won't hold my breath and not meaning to insult you.

Are Mormons allowed to gamble? Because I'd love to make a bet with you on this one.

RA

[Doctor Steuss]

I'm bored and a little hung-over, so I'll take a crack at this...

"More than any other new religious movement, Mormonism presents a challenge to the health and growth of authentic Christianity.

I can't help but note that they felt the need for a modifier, thus tacitly admitting that Mormonism is part of Christianity; however, not part of their modifier of "authentic" (a rather subjective term).

It is also the most insistent of these groups in its claims to be Christian [various LDS claims listed, including devotion to 'Christ']. . . .

I imagine it is so insistent because, wellâ?¦ it is Christian (just as they tacitly admitted [knowingly or not] with their previous adjective).

This devotion to Christ, they insist, is more than sufficient for Mormonism to be considered an authentic Christian faith [Owen & Mosser then note the LDS claims that Mormonism only differs from mainstream Christianity by the fullness of Gospel it holds]. . . . This gives the impression that Mormonism is basically Christian, differentiated from other forms of Christianity primarily by additions and modifications" (emphases added).

I guess I might never understand why some think that having the right beliefs would trump devotion (i.e. â??pistisâ?). Is it not through pistis that Christians are supposedly saved?

"By now it should be very clear that Mormonism represents a world far removed from that of the earliest Christians and the orthodox tradition.

Thatâ??s kind of par for a Dispensation.

We cannot accept its claim to restore earliest Christianity.

Which is their right and privilege. I donâ??t accept its claim to restore earliest Christianity either.

To be sure, at the doctrinal level Mormonism has a structure similar to Christianity's, and its devotion to Jesus is sincere.

I canâ??t help but wonder if this is part of what they wrote that you agree with Mr. Abanes(?) If you wouldnâ??t mind, could you please confirm that you agree with this statement of theirs?

Both, however, are nested in a worldview that undermines true knowledge of God and salvation.

Iâ??m not sure how a worldview can trump sincere devotion to Jesus (i.e. sincere pistis). Perhaps I need to re-read my Bible.

Like those of the Gnostics, many Mormon teachings are antithetical to a Christian vision of reality. . . .

I canâ??t help but wonder what this â??Christian vision of realityâ? is. I think thatâ??s a bit ambiguous. Given that sincere pistis towards Christ isnâ??t enough for them, I think they should really lay out in plain terms what this vision of reality is. Is it a six day creation? 6000 year old earth? Literal flood? Jesus riding dinosaurs?

The 'restored Gospel' of Mormonism must be clearly distinguished from the biblical gospel.

Indeed it should, as it claims to be the Gospel of Christ, not the â??biblical gospel.â?

For these reasons Mormonism cannot be meaningfully or properly classified as a Christian faith"

So, after tacitly admitting it is Christian, followed by admitting LDS have sincere devotion to Jesus (i.e. pistis), it canâ??t be meaningfully or properly (whatever that means) classified as a Christian faith?

For two guys that are lauded so much, from what you posted they seem kind of silly. I'm sure there was much in the ellipses portions that would change my opinion though, so perhaps I need to see if my library has this (for when Iâ??m done studying the purification aspects of Shinto).

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well done.

[Aquilifer]

I consider Danial's accusation [...]

to be an attack on my character.

It's an attack (well-justified) on the belligerent nature of your posts, not on your character. Unless the nature of your posts is a mirror of the nature of your personal character, in which case I offer my condolences.

I guess I meant sanctioned differently than you do. If the church didn't approve of your being here, you guys sure wouldn't be here. So perhaps the best word would have been approval.

I doubt that "the Church" is more than peripherally aware of this site, nor do I imagine that it cares. I certainly don't need its permission or approval. The overwhelming majority of us don't need the Church to approve of everything we do with our time, so spare me the Morg speech.

I didn't say that Mormons were juvenile deceivers, you did. Please don't put words in my mouth. Could we call this spin since you guys seem to really like that word.

Well, I cop to giving a summary of what you said:

Did you realize that that kind of bait and switch technique is typical of Mormon posters everywhere? If they don't like a topic, they will point out that they aren't so bad because some one else is worse. Do you really want to be known as just not the worst of everything? The Mormon habit of trying to switch the focus of attention to someone else is......well rather reminiscent of grade school. "He did it first!"

Surely you can see why "juvenile deceivers" is a self-evident summary of your gratuitously rash generalization?

As for the church being above criticism and reproach, the following speaks for itself.

Nowhere in that cluster of quote mining do I see the Church making the claim you accuse it of. Context is everything.

Allow me voice the following opinions:

• -Sunday School should be eliminated from the 3 hour block
  -The international scope of the Church needs better representation in the upper reaches of the Church hierarchy
  -Correlation is causing more harm than good
  -The Church should have paid far better attention to missionary baptism and retention practices in Latin America during the 80's and 90's
  -Support for Prop 8 may have undone years of working for public goodwill by the Church
  

There. So far, no hordes of Danites have come sweeping into my home to.... <CRASH> <BOOM> Aaaahhh! Wife, get the children out!!!

[Bernard Gui]

You will get your reply -- and so will FAIR. Keep your eyes scanning for a new thread -- I am guessing in about 1-2 weeks. Truth will always win out.

RA

As far as ONUG goes, truth has already won out.

If your reply is some sort of mea culpa, bring it on.

Otherwise, it will just result in more of the same, don't

you think? Are you are seeking absolution or vindication?

Wouldn't it be best just to ascribe it to misguided zealousness,

make amends, and move on?

Bernard