Lds.Org And Orthodox Christianity

[JDave]

Articles on other religions

A. Burt Horsley, “Roman Catholicism,” Ensign, April 1971.

Milton V. Backman Jr., “Eastern Orthodoxy,” Ensign, May 1971.

Comment: The above two articles describe Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, stating where the LDS Church views their doctrines as erroneous and contrasting them with LDS beliefs. I have often been told by Mormons that Mormons don’t do this sort of thing.

I didn't see much contrasting going on there. The articles were part of a series written to help members of the church be more aware of people of other faiths that live in our world. The articles were written with the stated goal of:

This is the first of a series of scholarly articles that examine some of the major world religions. Even though obvious differences do exist between contemporary religious faiths, a greater understanding of their histories, doctrines, personalities, and aspirations will certainly bring us nearer the goal of a brotherhood of mankind.

and included other articles on Hinduism, Judaism, Confucianism, The Church of England, Lutheranism, and Zoroastrianism. If your ministry had articles on Mormonism and Jehovah's witnesses similar to the articles you cited, I think that would "certainly bring us nearer the goal of a brotherhood of mankind."

[volgadon]

Comment: From what I can tell—precise statistics are unavailable—the vast majority of those converted through the LDS Church’s missionaries come from traditional Christian families. This appears to be true even in such places as Africa.

The vast majority of converts to protestant denominations in Eastern Europe come from traditional Christian families. If you are ok with considering those efforts an attack on Christianity, then you are more than welcome to apply the same condemnation to our missionaries.

[Flyonthewall]

Flyonthewall,

You wrote:

I respectfully disagree. Your religion's official website repeatedly claims that the people of our religion worship an abstract, impersonal nothing. This isn't a matter of recognizing the differences; this is flat-out misrepresentation of our faith.

Whose faith? I didn't see any specific church mentioned. What specific church was targeted? This was about a teaching that God is without body, parts or passions and is incomprehensible, that exists in non-LDS Christianity.

There are a lot of non-LDS christians out there and not all of them believe and/or teach the same things.

You wrote:

Actually, I gave examples of articles on lds.org that do just that. See especially the following articles:

LeGrand Richards, “Strange Creeds of Christendom,” Ensign, Jan. 1973.

Bruce R. McConkie, “This Generation Shall Have My Word through You,” Ensign, June 1980.

A. Burt Horsley, “Roman Catholicism,” Ensign, April 1971.

Milton V. Backman Jr., “Eastern Orthodoxy,” Ensign, May 1971.

Perhaps if you highlighted what you though was us picking apart another church, it would help.

LeGrand Richards used an example of one teaching, not a specific church.

Bruce R. McConkie used an example of a teaching, not a specific church.

Remember, not all Christians believe and/or teach the same things.

The articles on Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy give an overview the the churches. Nowhere is there any criticism or picking apart.

The point you were trying for remains unmade.

[Grundelwalken]

I have watched this topic (in numerous threads) over the last few weeks. My impressions of individuals has changed some concerning some posters -- and sadly , it is not for the better. These are my thoughts and observations.

I have tried to be forgiving and understanding to Rob ( Xander and others would be included but since Rob started this 'contest' I will use his name for reference purposes) because I am aware he has an agenda he is pushing. The benefit of a doubt has been offered (at least in my mind) numerous times when subjects have deteriorated below what I might consider kind behavior. But it seems that the true colors of folks like Rob and others have begun to come out in their actions on this board.

While Rob seems to be a friendly, interested and, at times, even likable, fellow, his actions give light to his true message. He has no intent except to spread doubt, mistrust, and falsehoods in his desire to 'rebut' the truths we hold dear. Using quotes, misquotes, out of context quotes, subterfuge, deception, and other methods, he builds a case for the 'wickedness' of those who follow the Church holding Christ as the Foundation and Joseph Smith as His Prophet.

I know the responses he will offer and I reject them as more of his efforts to spread his venom.

Oh, Rob is very subtle at times but his work is still done with negative tones in mind. His heart is so focused on his task that he has abandoned all efforts to find truth in what we, as a religion, believe. All his efforts are wrapped up in finding and twisting doctrines and principles taught by Joseph Smith and his successors. Yes, there are some small principles he will allow us to have that might have a smidgen of truth but overall, he believes all that we do is bound in wickedness and lies.

These are just a few of my own observations as I try to reconcile my desire to be kind with my desire to protect something that I love very deeply. I know that what I have said may appear personal and I guess it is. But attacking someone's faith is a very personal thing to do so I let my dander get up. If the mods want to delete I'm game for that. But I think it is important that Rob understands the level of venom he is spewing. It won't make much difference because his life-work is set but he needs to know nonetheless. MW

[Calm]

On the other hand, I think most LDS should also become more knowledgeable about other faiths. On my mission, most of my companions were pretty clueless about the religion of our investigators. I thought that since we were essentially asking our investigators to study and follow the LDS religion, the least we could do is become familiar with theirs.

I make sure to tell any new missionaries I come across that they should put themselves in the place of the investigator they are asking to first investigate the Church and then accept it...how would they feel if someone approached them to do the same thing for their LDS faith and what that could me to them if they changed faiths in regards to their family, lifestyle, etc. I tell them to consider the hugeness of what they are asking of the investigator and that they need to give the individual or family comparable respect, understanding, tolerance and support no matter what the actual decision is.

[Nevo]

Using quotes, misquotes, out of context quotes, subterfuge, deception, and other methods, he builds a case for the 'wickedness' of those who follow the Church holding Christ as the Foundation and Joseph Smith as His Prophet. . . . All his efforts are wrapped up in finding and twisting doctrines and principles taught by Joseph Smith and his successors. Yes, there are some small principles he will allow us to have that might have a smidgen of truth but overall, he believes all that we do is bound in wickedness and lies.

Are you sure you aren't bearing false witness here?

I understand your defensiveness, given Rob's criticism of certain things that you hold dear. But remember the words of Joseph Smith: "If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way."

I wish more members on this board could say: "If I esteem Rob Bowman to be in error, shall I bear him down? No. I will lift him up, and in his own way too, if I cannot persuade him my way is better. . . for truth will cut its own way."

[Rob Bowman]

Jeff,

You now have advanced from being given the benefit of the doubt to being recognized as engaged in deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. You wrote:

I have never seen us call other churches non Christian. That is your schtick, not ours. We believe all churches who seek to follow Christ and be his disciples are Christian.

I cannot say what you personally believe, Jeff, but I can tell you that the LDS Church does not recognize any church outside itself as a true Christian church at all. Yes, Mormons commonly call non-Mormon believers in Jesus "Christians," but LDS doctrine does not recognize any Christian church other than itself. Furthermore, the LDS Church denies that Christians outside the LDS Church are validly baptized, have the gift of the Holy Ghost, or can validly preach the gospel.

Jeff, read the quotes I gave from your religion's official website! It claims that we worship an abstract nothingness. What sort of disciples of Christ worship an abstract nothingness?

You wrote:

It is a reflection of the dishonesty of your debate to attempt to attribute to us what you yourself do.

I have been very honest with you, and furthermore, I have been accurate in what I said. I cannot say the same for you.

You wrote:

And I hate to tell you this (your careful avoidance of Catholics manifests another aspect of that dishonesty), but no Presbyterians do not consider themselves equal to Baptists, in fact they are separate (hence the separation of churches). Ask a Catholic and when you get down to it, you are nothing more than an apostate group. And apostate groups don't have the authority.

The divide between Catholics and Protestants is indeed a very significant one. However, having been involved firsthand in all three of the denominations you mentioned, I know firsthand that your comments are misleading at best. I'm not even sure what it would mean to say that Presbyterians and Baptists are "equal"; both are equally Christian, as members of both groups almost always agree. Catholics view Protestants as "separated brethren"; we are just as redeemed by Christ and have the same hope as they do, according to Catholic doctrine.

Here you are, doing one of the very things Mormons constantly complain that their critics do: you are making statements about what other Christian churches, including mine, believe.

You wrote:

It is this sort of malfeasence in discussion that makes us wonder at both the ignorance and hatred so many of you express towards our church. I use the word hatred because Christ would have been much more forthright and honest in a discussion, but the adversary would have advocated evasion and deceit....

You go on in this vein of accusing us of hatred and lies, so I can end the excerpts from your post here. There's simply no excuse for these statements. I have already done more than enough to rebut your accusations of dishonesty. Expressing disagreement with your religion is not hating. If it is, go look at the quotations I provided from LDS.org and you will see plenty of hating. The reality is that there is nothing wrong or immoral about frankly criticizing someone else's religion. The only relevant question is whether those criticisms are true.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Rob, don't try to tell me that the point of this thread is not a justification of your actions attacking Mormonism by trying to make it seem like the LDS church does the same to Evangelicals. We don't. We disagree with Evangelicals and we mention that fact on occasion. I suspect you probably don't understand the distinction, but if you don't, you really have no business attacking our church.

Bill, you are so much smarter than this! The quotations I provided from LDS.org do not merely mention the fact that you disagree with evangelicals. It makes the very same kinds of criticisms of evangelicals that evangelicals make of Mormonism. It argues that evangelicals worship a false God, believe in a false Christ, distort the teachings of the Bible, preach a false gospel, etc., etc., etc. If this is "attacking," then the LDS Church attacks evangelicals.

You wrote:

At any rate, the fact that IRR doesn't just attack Mormonism is irrelevant. The fact that you attack lots of other religions doesn't justifying attacking ours (or any of them). In fact, it makes it worse.

And the fact that Evangelicals are particularly prone to attacking other faiths is, I believe, a symptom of a serious sickness in the heart of Evangelicalism--about which many Evangelicals would agree with me, by the way.

So, by all means, carry on attacking other faiths. But please stop trying to get us to approve of your behavior.

Your post uses the word "attack" five times, but you can say it fifty times and the facts will not change. The LDS Church "attacks" all Christian churches other than itself as apostate, false churches that believe in a false god. If expressing such criticisms is attacking another religion, then the LDS Church attacks other religions.

[JDave]

Rob,

As an overall response I would say that you are overstating some of the problems you see and taking some things out of context. Certainly the complete absence of any attempt to prove another religion wrong goes to the heart of most complaints against anti-Mormon ministries such as IRR. If you want to state that Mormonism or the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong and leave it at that, if you want to warn others and say that our version of Christianity is far away from the Orthodox truth and leave it at that -- that would be fine. Instead we have you: devoting countless hours to a ministry proving just how wrong we are, poring over our literature and discourses to find quotes that can be used against us, reinterpreting our literature and publishing a guide to what we really mean rather than letting the text speak for itself, and callously publishing material that you know to be considered quite sacred.

That said, I absolutely agree with you that language like "worshipping fake Christs" is hurtful and inappropriate. I am grateful that my personal feelings on this matter seem to be reflected more in the recent articles and discourses of my Church leaders.

[Rob Bowman]

Dave,

I took a closer look at the articles on Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and you're right, they don't do much to contrast those religions with the LDS religion. The one on Roman Catholicism does explain that Mormons differ with the Catholic claim that the authority of Peter was transmitted down through the generations in the papacy.

Thanks for your comments on my analysis of the LDS.org website. As far as I can tell, the LDS Church has not changed its opinion of non-LDS beliefs. It has simply become less candid in stating that opinion.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

You wrote:

The vast majority of converts to protestant denominations in Eastern Europe come from traditional Christian families. If you are ok with considering those efforts an attack on Christianity, then you are more than welcome to apply the same condemnation to our missionaries.

I didn't condemn Mormon missionaries for preaching to Christians. They should, if they believe that those Christians do not really know Christ.

[JDave]

I didn't condemn Mormon missionaries for preaching to Christians. They should, if they believe that those Christians do not really know Christ.

Are you saying that the traditional Christian families in Eastern Europe do not really know Christ?

[Rob Bowman]

Grundwelwalken,

Your "thoughts and observations" have no firm root in any facts about me, my motivation, or what I have said here. The problem is typified by the following statement:

Using quotes, misquotes, out of context quotes, subterfuge, deception, and other methods, he builds a case for the 'wickedness' of those who follow the Church holding Christ as the Foundation and Joseph Smith as His Prophet.

You have given no examples of misquotes or out of context quotes in anything I have written. You have given no examples of subterfuge or deception. And I never used the term "wickedness," which you put in quotation marks, to describe Mormons.

That doesn't leave much for me to answer.

[Rob Bowman]

Dave,

You wrote:

Are you saying that the traditional Christian families in Eastern Europe do not really know Christ?

Some do, some don't. Evangelicals do not make such blanket assumptions about people in a particular region. There are nominal Christians throughout North and South America, in Western and Eastern Europe, in Africa, and even in other parts of the world. These nominal Christians include Protestants as well as Catholic and Orthodox church members. But all of these churches also have genuine believers who already know Christ.

[JDave]

But all of these churches also have genuine believers who already know Christ.

And if they convert to your Evangelical belief, that has no reflection on whether they did or did not know Christ beforehand, right? We likewise accept all who choose to join our fold, whether they are nominal Christians, Hindus, Muslims, atheists, or genuine believers who already know Christ.

Regarding the lack of candidness of the LDS Church, do you believe that President Hinckley was "less candid" when he stated the following?

“We recognize the good in all churches. We recognize the value of religion generally. We say to everyone: live the teachings which you have received from your church. We invite you to come and learn from us, to see if we can add to those teachings and enhance your life and your understanding of things sacred and divine. Now we work with people of other faiths on common causes, many of them across the world. We recognize theological differences. We believe that we can disagree theologically without being disagreeable, and we hope to do so. We have been rather careful about surrendering in any way our doctrinal standards, anything of that kind as part of an ecumenical effort, but we certainly have worked with people, and do work with people, and want to work with other groups in tackling common social problems, things of that kind which are so much in need of attention these days throughout the world” (interview with Lawrence Spicer, London News Service, 28 Aug. 1995).

That was just the first thing I found. I searched for the word ecumenical, hoping for something although I knew that the vast majority of relevant quotes wouldn't really have that word in there. I would urge you to search as diligently for such statements as President Hinckley's here as you did for the statements you posted in your OP.

[Nevo]

That was just the first thing I found. I searched for the word ecumenical, hoping for something although I knew that the vast majority of relevant quotes wouldn't really have that word in there. I would urge you to search as diligently for such statements as President Hinckley's here as you did for the statements you posted in your OP.

An article that made an impression on me when I read it (as a missionary, as a matter of fact) was Roger Keller's Ensign article, "Do I Know My Neighbor?" wherein he recounted his and his family's conversion from Presbyterianism. I doubt Presbyterians would enjoy the article, but I thought it was an important corrective to Zoramite-like attitudes among the Saints with regard to other Christian faiths.

Here's a brief excerpt:

[T]o be members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we did not have to give up or deny the experiences we had already had with the Lord, nor did we need to give up the truths about God that were already a part of our lives. Instead, we were simply asked to build on those truths and experiences. We had been clearly shown a continuity between the Holy Ghost we knew as Presbyterians and the Holy Ghost we experienced as Latter-day Saints. Thus, we have never questioned whether we walked with God in our previous vocation of ministry or whether the Lord had led us to that ministry on our path to the fulness of the gospel.... As Latter-day Saints...we need to acknowledge the invaluable contributions our Christian neighbors have made, and continue to make, in furthering the Lord’s work on the earth."

Edited February 12, 2012 by Nevo

[volgadon]

volgadon,

I didn't condemn Mormon missionaries for preaching to Christians. They should, if they believe that those Christians do not really know Christ.

You said this.

To put this matter into perspective, I will document the fact that a significant part of what the LDS Church does is publicly criticizing evangelical and other traditional forms of Christianity. In fact, to make this documentation as pertinent as possible, all examples will come directly from the LDS Church’s own official website, lds.org.

You then said this, bolding yours.

The LDS Church intentionally sends missionaries to convert Christians

If that counts as an example of "a significant part of what the LDS Church does is publicly criticizing evangelical and other traditional forms of Christianity," then how come evangelical proselyting amongst traditional Christians in Eastern Europe doesn't count as such too?

[JDave]

An article that made an impression on me when I read it (as a missionary, as a matter of fact) was Roger Keller's Ensign article, "Do I Know My Neighbor?" wherein he recounted his and his family's conversion from Presbyterianism. I doubt Presbyterians would enjoy the article, but I thought it was an important corrective to Zoramite-like attitudes among the Saints with regard to other Christian faiths.

I don't know if I remember that exact article or not, but I do remember reading and pondering something similar to the line "Thus, we have never questioned whether we walked with God in our previous vocation of ministry"

Thanks for posting!

[zerinus]

I didn't condemn Mormon missionaries for preaching to Christians. They should, if they believe that those Christians do not really know Christ.

That is a strange remark. How do you determine if somebody "knows Christ"? Is it written on their foreheads? What if they think they know Him, but they don't? What if they know Him, but not as well as they could? I don't think anybody can "know Christ" as well as they could if they are not acquainted with the message of the Restored gospel.

[Xander]

Rob is engaged in a textbook example of cherry-picking.

Does the LDS Church have a website dedicated solely to attacking Evangelicalism, or Catholicism, or Islam, or Hinduism? No.

Do Evangelicals have such sites? Hundreds, perhaps thousands.

It simply astonishes me that the Evangelicals can't understand this obvious distinction.

Bill is trying to insult everyone's intelligence here, pretending that the plethora of anti-Christian statements by LDS Leaders shouldn't mean anything because they don't appear on Church websites designed for the sole purpose of attacking other religions.

He says we're just "cherry picking" which is what we'd expect from an apologist, but the fact is the Church has never taken a stand and retracted those comments. No. In fact we see the same kinds of sentiments played out all the time even in the modern Church. The fact that they don't get published only goes to show how the Church has been taken over with a corporate mindset, worried more about political correctness than an honest expression of its teachings. Remember, the LDS Church is a corporation, Rob's website is not. The LDS Church hires hundreds of professionals to advise it on matters of public relations. Rob does not. So is it really a mystery why the Mormon bigotry isn't as advertised in the same way as Evangelical bigotry?

Of course, it doesn't really take a huge amount of thinking to see these distinctions and understand how they explain why the Church can attack other faiths throughout history, but not be so open about their attacks. It isn't as if those non-LDS who think LDS are tolerant, are going to go sifting through the Journal of Discourses or past Ensign magazines at LDS.org.

The fact is Mormons regularly attack other faiths.

Heck, right before I left Brazil I went to a party held by a bunch of Mormons who worked at the Embassy, and among them was Brasilia's Mission President. He was going off on a rant about how the local Catholics were a bunch of idolaters, etc etc. I immediately told my wife, "you see, this is how Mormons REALLY think and act, when they do not have a microphone or camera in their face." Not a single Mormon in the room stood up and told him he was being intolerant. Instead, all I saw was a bunch of head nodding in the affirmative.

So much for tolerance.

All you can say in defense is that this isn't official doctrine in the modern apologetic sense of the phrase. Well, so what? It is still common belief and attitude among Mormons. Most of them have the sense to keep it on "the down low" of course, but most of us who have spent any amount of time in the Church know that the apologists on this thread are just blowing smoke.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Xander

[Robert F. Smith]

Bill is trying to insult everyone's intelligence here, pretending that the plethora of anti-Christian statements by LDS Leaders shouldn't mean anything because they don't appear on Church websites designed for the sole purpose of attacking other religions.

He says we're just "cherry picking" which is what we'd expect from an apologist, but the fact is the Church has never taken a stand and retracted those comments. No. In fact we see the same kinds of sentiments played out all the time even in the modern Church. The fact that they don't get published only goes to show how the Church has been taken over with a corporate mindset, worried more about political correctness than an honest expression of its teachings. Remember, the LDS Church is a corporation, Rob's website is not. The LDS Church hires hundreds of professionals to advise it on matters of public relations. Rob does not. So is it really a mystery why the Mormon bigotry isn't as advertised in the same way as Evangelical bigotry?

Of course, it doesn't really take a huge amount of thinking to see these distinctions and understand how they explain why the Church can attack other faiths throughout history, but not be so open about their attacks. It isn't as if those non-LDS who think LDS are tolerant, are going to go sifting through the Journal of Discourses or past Ensign magazines at LDS.org.

The fact is Mormons regularly attack other faiths.

Heck, right before I left Brazil I went to a party held by a bunch of Mormons who worked at the Embassy, and among them was Brasilia's Mission President. He was going off on a rant about how the local Catholics were a bunch of idolaters, etc etc. I immediately told my wife, "you see, this is how Mormons REALLY think and act, when they do not have a microphone or camera in their face." Not a single Mormon in the room stood up and told him he was being intolerant. Instead, all I saw was a bunch of head nodding in the affirmative.

So much for tolerance.

All you can say in defense is that this isn't official doctrine in the modern apologetic sense of the phrase. Well, so what? It is still common belief and attitude among Mormons. Most of them have the sense to keep it on "the down low" of course, but most of us who have spent any amount of time in the Church know that the apologists on this thread are just blowing smoke.

Tu quoque, Kevin,

Tolerance is a two-way street. Or should be.

In any case, your unbalanced diatribe here basically says that the LDS Church is damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

I do recall an occasion back in 1965 (possibly before you were born) when a recently returned LDS missionary (he had been in Central America somewhere) had some particularly nasty things to say about the proclivities of Roman Catholic priests and nuns in general. I was young and not mature enough to practice self-restraint. Instead, I told him as loudly and as harshly as I could what I really thought of his stupid and bigoted comments -- and made an eternal enemy of the guy.

I should have calmly told him what was true then and is still true, without the invective: The vast majority of Roman Catholic priests, monks, and nuns take their vocation and vows very seriously, and try very sincerely to follow Christ. We should respect that commitment and eschew the kind of blithering idiocy expressed by your Brasilia Mission President. You should have spoken up forthrightly at that time!! We all make mistakes.

[volgadon]

Not a single Mormon in the room stood up and told him he was being intolerant. Instead, all I saw was a bunch of head nodding in the affirmative.

Did you still consider yourself Mormon at the time?

[Xander]

Did you still consider yourself Mormon at the time?

Nope. This was years after I left.

[Xander]

In any case, your unbalanced diatribe here basically says that the LDS Church is damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

As opposed to yours which was... balanced?

LOL!

Damned if they do what?

Do I have a problem with Hinckley's attempt to steer the Church towards a more tolerant path? Of course not. But I'm not going to sit here and pretend it is because the Church has always adopted that path. I'm not going to pretend is actions are indicative of the Church as a whole, and not some PR move on his part while the cameras are in his face.

I have a problem with Mormons who pretend as if the Church has no history of bigotry at all, and who constantly whine about how badly they've been persecuted in the past, as if everyone here was present during Hauns Mill. Those who pretend as if every citation we present, illustrating a consistent tradition of Mormon intolerance towards other Christians,are just remarks taken out of context by those deceptive anti types.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Xander

[Storm Rider]

Bill is trying to insult everyone's intelligence here, pretending that the plethora of anti-Christian statements by LDS Leaders shouldn't mean anything because they don't appear on Church websites designed for the sole purpose of attacking other religions.

He says we're just "cherry picking" which is what we'd expect from an apologist, but the fact is the Church has never taken a stand and retracted those comments. No. In fact we see the same kinds of sentiments played out all the time even in the modern Church. The fact that they don't get published only goes to show how the Church has been taken over with a corporate mindset, worried more about political correctness than an honest expression of its teachings. Remember, the LDS Church is a corporation, Rob's website is not. The LDS Church hires hundreds of professionals to advise it on matters of public relations. Rob does not. So is it really a mystery why the Mormon bigotry isn't as advertised in the same way as Evangelical bigotry?

Of course, it doesn't really take a huge amount of thinking to see these distinctions and understand how they explain why the Church can attack other faiths throughout history, but not be so open about their attacks. It isn't as if those non-LDS who think LDS are tolerant, are going to go sifting through the Journal of Discourses or past Ensign magazines at LDS.org.

The fact is Mormons regularly attack other faiths.

Heck, right before I left Brazil I went to a party held by a bunch of Mormons who worked at the Embassy, and among them was Brasilia's Mission President. He was going off on a rant about how the local Catholics were a bunch of idolaters, etc etc. I immediately told my wife, "you see, this is how Mormons REALLY think and act, when they do not have a microphone or camera in their face." Not a single Mormon in the room stood up and told him he was being intolerant. Instead, all I saw was a bunch of head nodding in the affirmative.

So much for tolerance.

All you can say in defense is that this isn't official doctrine in the modern apologetic sense of the phrase. Well, so what? It is still common belief and attitude among Mormons. Most of them have the sense to keep it on "the down low" of course, but most of us who have spent any amount of time in the Church know that the apologists on this thread are just blowing smoke.

So are you offended that Mormons are not perfect; that they make mistakes and are not perfectly Christlike? I hope you are not surprised by these facts. Do you think LDS do not know they are imperfect and many individual members are not nearly as self-aware as you obviously are?

It must be supremely reassuring to criticize/spit vitriol from afar and at every single member that does not meet such Christlike standards, which you must possess in abundance. I am one of those LDS that is infinitely weak and falls short everyday of the week. In fact, I am one that sins daily and feels such a deep degree of pity for one such as you. I pity your pride, the knowledge that you are weak and do not know it; the absence of charity in every entry you make on this forum; the snideness in your posts, and I pity your inabililty to see yourself as you are; a broken man that does not know he needs mending by the God of all that is.