Are Mormons Christian: Continue The Discussion

[zerinus]

Why do LDS care if evangelicals consider LDS to be Christian?

We don't care. That is seen as an attack by Apostate Christianity against the true Chistianity which is Mormonism, therefore we try to defend the true Christianity against it. We do that by reminding you (and anybody else who cares to know) that Evangelicalism is a form of Apostate Christianity, whereas Mormonism is a Restoration of the original and true form of Christianity.

By the way, I was not justifying entire anti-Mormon ministries and arguments. I was simply pointing out the irony in the desire of so many LDS to be accepted by the mainstream Christians.

We are not trying to do that at all. We are doing the opposite. We are trying to establish a clear divide between Apostate Christianity which is Evangelicalism, and true Restored Christianity which is Mormonism.

I can see that you have chosen your moniker wrong. The only thing that you do not appear to be very good at is "thinking". I would change to "not thinking," or "not good at thinking," or "not thinking very hard," or something like that.

Edited September 11, 2012 by zerinus

[spartacus]

I said nothing about your motives. I simply stated a fact. "Spirit babies" is an anti-Mormon created phrase for use in anti-Mormon polemics. Your usage of it simply indicates the qualities of some of your sources.

If you are interested in discussion and dialogue I recommend that you use better sources of information for LDS doctrine and beliefs.

Which is exactly my point. You just said "I stated a fact" and then proceeded to confirm the implication I interpreted from your original response - that you condition discussion and dialogue (at least in your recommendation) to my having what you assume I don't already have - better LDS sources. You assume that "spirit babies" can only be a sign of bad sources and so imply refusal (or at least distaste, certainly disrespect) to discuss and dialogue unless I get better sources than the ones you assume I use. Perhaps you would like "spiritual progeny" or "spiritual children", I could do that for you if you like, but they don't come about as "grown" children, but as babies, so "spirit babies" is what it is.

And you show the point (that "anti" talk is unfair and unproductive) because even if I got that phrase from anti material does it change the meaning of the term "spirit babies" or its accuracy to the LDS view of eternal life? I don't think it does. I am not even sure you think it does! Because instead of discussing the issue you get into this "you should get better sources than the ones I assume you use whether or not you use better ones as well already if you want to discuss and dialogue."

Lastly, anti-mormons do not have the phrase "spirit babies" copyrighted. Considering that LDS believe in spiritual progeny and that they are born as babies then the term could just as easily have been used by an non-anti-non-mormon source. But you assume otherwise, ignore the discussion at hand and get into "anti" labeling.

"Anti" labeling is a waste of time. I shall leave it at that for the sake of this thread.

So what do you think of the content of my points?

[spartacus]

We don't care. That is seen as an attack by Apostate Christianity against the true Chistianity which is Mormonism, therefore we try to defend the true Christianity against it. We do that by reminding you (and anybody else who cares to know) that Evangelicalism is a form of Apostate Christianity, whereas Mormonism is a Restoration of the original and true form of Christianity.

With some proper noun changes and deletion of "Restoration of the original" this would be the point of traditional Christians to the LDS Church. Irony.

We are not trying to do that at all. We are doing the opposite. We are trying to establish a clear divide between Apostate Christianity which is Evangelicalism, and true Restored Christianity which is Mormonism.

I can see that you have chosen your moniker wrong. The only thing that you do not appear to be very good at is "thinking". I would change to "not thinking," or "not good at thinking," or "not thinking very hard," or something like that.

I'm not quite sure who you are talking about when you say "we". If you mean you, zerinus, and those you personally know, than that is commendable. But I don't see the LDS Church making anything near that statement. I wish it would. If you have proof otherwise, please give me the source. I would greatly appreciate it.

While I can commend you on the clarity and honesty of your position, I cannot do so about your last statement toward thinking. I don't know what the best way is to say it accept to quote it, "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."

Or, in the similar lyrics of the song "Proof of Your Love" by the band For King and Country,

"If I speak with a silver tongue

Convince a crowd but don't have love

I leave a bitter taste

With every word I say"

[spartacus]

I find it humorous that critics have to try so hard to mis-characterize the one statement in our doctrines about disapproving of religious profession in order to justify entire anti-Mormon ministries and arguments.

Take that back... its not humorous its dishonest and crass.

Except for the exaggeration in your statement as far as "justify entire anti-Mormon ministries and arguments", could you expound and clarify what you mean by the "try so hard to mis-characterize the one statement in our doctrines about disapproving of religious profession". And, of course, I welcome you to do so with the part I see as an exaggeration if you do not see it so.

[spartacus]

I don't think there are any current LDS who deny the term Christians to other groups who accept the atonement and resurrection of Christ.

I didn't say that there were. But zerinus might have in comment #451.

I wasn't speaking of LDS claims but considering the pointed thought experiment of s/he to whom I was responding. They thought it a point to consider if anti-Christians started persecuting all Christians and whether they included LDS in that group. I said that anti-Christian opinion would be even less significant than LDS take traditional Christians' opinion to be, so even if LDS were included it wouldn't matter. However, if they were excluded by even anti-Christians then that would be the only significant scenario - as, then, anti-Christians would be seen as being ok with LDS despite their claims to Christ. I don't think that would happen - anti-Christians would probably hate the same things about LDS as they do about Christians and so treat them similarly. But again, that would be simply unfortunate not authoritative.

[Vance]

Which is exactly my point. You just said "I stated a fact" and then proceeded to confirm the implication I interpreted from your original response - that you condition discussion and dialogue (at least in your recommendation) to my having what you assume I don't already have - better LDS sources. You assume that "spirit babies" can only be a sign of bad sources and so imply refusal (or at least distaste, certainly disrespect) to discuss and dialogue unless I get better sources than the ones you assume I use. Perhaps you would like "spiritual progeny" or "spiritual children", I could do that for you if you like, but they don't come about as "grown" children, but as babies, so "spirit babies" is what it is.

Can you find the phrase "spirit babies" in any LDS officially recognized source?

Search if you like, but the answer is no. You only find it in anti-mormon sources (or responses to them). And its general usage is in a derogatory form. Your use of it clearly shows that you bathe in such sources, which is a discussion stopper of YOUR making. The fact that you are attempting to defend its generation is also telling.

And you show the point (that "anti" talk is unfair and unproductive) because even if I got that phrase from anti material does it change the meaning of the term "spirit babies" or its accuracy to the LDS view of eternal life?

The LDS view of eternal life has nothing to do with the anti-mormon created phrase "spirit babies". That is the point, which you are unwilling to see. And your unwillingness to see is a dialogue stopper.

I don't think it does.

The key part of that sentence is the part about you not thinking.

I am not even sure you think it does!

See above.

Because instead of discussing the issue you get into this "you should get better sources than the ones I assume you use whether or not you use better ones as well already if you want to discuss and dialogue."

Clearly you have well read an abundance of anti-mormon material which would indicate that you are not well informed but rather MISinformed.

Lastly, anti-mormons do not have the phrase "spirit babies" copyrighted.

No, but they could have.

Considering that LDS believe in spiritual progeny and that they are born as babies then the term could just as easily have been used by an non-anti-non-mormon source.

Nowhere in official LDS sources are spirit offspring claimed to be "born as babies". So, as mentioned above, you are misinformed.

But, look at the bright side, you are exhibiting another anti-mormon characteristic, by telling us what we believe and getting it wrong.

Bravo!!!!

But you assume otherwise, ignore the discussion at hand and get into "anti" labeling.

Yes, you have done a splendid job of taking us there.

"Anti" labeling is a waste of time.

Labels, when used properly, are EXTREMELY useful. You use them all the time.

So what do you think of the content of my points?

They show you to be misinformed and with anti-mormon tendencies.

So, do you really want to dialogue, or do you just what to preach at us?

Edited September 11, 2012 by Vance

[Calm]

Why do LDS care if evangelicals consider LDS to be Christian?

I don't think LDS care that some EVs themselves consider LDS not to be Christian....at least if the EVs understand why the claim was originally made and are not merely repeating it because they heard someone else say it as has occurred in my experience (a young man repeating it solely because it was what his pastor said, he could not explain himself why we were not Christian). It is how they influence others to perceive that matters....at least to me...where they create confusion in whether or not we believe in Christ in a historical sense or the Bible, etc.

[KevinG]

Except for the exaggeration in your statement as far as "justify entire anti-Mormon ministries and arguments", could you expound and clarify what you mean by the "try so hard to mis-characterize the one statement in our doctrines about disapproving of religious profession". And, of course, I welcome you to do so with the part I see as an exaggeration if you do not see it so.

I can attest to anti-Mormons using the "you fired the first shot" defense when justifying their hatred and opposition to the Mormons. If I weren't already up past my bedtime I'm sure I could search some threads out here where that was used.

Funny how evangelicals will send me to hell if I do not follow their doctrines but I will provide a way for them to accept the fullness of the gospel through temple work. You will know us by our fruits.

[KevinG]

I don't think that would happen - anti-Christians would probably hate the same things about LDS as they do about Christians and so treat them similarly.

They do. Few things are as amusing as an Atheist butting into a conversation where an Evangelical is trying to tell Mormon that his beliefs are strange.

[spartacus]

A distinction without much of a difference. The scriptures are clear that good works/righteousness are a requirement to receiving eternal life.

What ever. Even Paul made it clear,

Rom 2:6 (God) Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

The context of that verse is crucial, as is its continuance in Chapter 3 (hint: the "all under sin/none righteous" section). I'll stop there for the sake of the thread.

[spartacus]

Can you find the phrase "spirit babies" in any LDS officially recognized source?

Search if you like, but the answer is no. You only find it in anti-mormon sources (or responses to them). And its general usage is in a derogatory form. Your use of it clearly shows that you bathe in such sources, which is a discussion stopper of YOUR making. The fact that you are attempting to defend its generation is also telling.

The LDS view of eternal life has nothing to do with the anti-mormon created phrase "spirit babies". That is the point, which you are unwilling to see. And your unwillingness to see is a dialogue stopper.

The key part of that sentence is the part about you not thinking.

See above.

Clearly you have well read an abundance of anti-mormon material which would indicate that you are not well informed but rather MISinformed.

No, but they could have.

Nowhere in official LDS sources are spirit offspring claimed to be "born as babies". So, as mentioned above, you are misinformed.

But, look at the bright side, you are exhibiting another anti-mormon characteristic, by telling us what we believe and getting it wrong.

Bravo!!!!

Yes, you have done a splendid job of taking us there.

Labels, when used properly, are EXTREMELY useful. You use them all the time.

They show you to be misinformed and with anti-mormon tendencies.

So, do you really want to dialogue, or do you just what to preach at us?

I was only talking to you. But you seem unwilling to hear. I said I would be willing to refer to "spiritual progeny" or "spirit children" if you preferred, you rejected that olive branch. You also seem unwilling to deal with the topic I was discussing, but insist on continuing on with your "I just stated a fact"/accusations.

I never tried to tell you or any other LDS what you believe. Again I said "LDS SEEM to believe". Its subtle but there.

You can twist this all you want against me. In the end I said in a perfectly respectful tone and with the humility of "seem" a perfectly honest and respectable view of an institution's teachings. You have made a mountain out of two words, despite my honest reassurances and reasons. That is your right. I leave you to it.

[spartacus]

I can attest to anti-Mormons using the "you fired the first shot" defense when justifying their hatred and opposition to the Mormons. If I weren't already up past my bedtime I'm sure I could search some threads out here where that was used.

Funny how evangelicals will send me to hell if I do not follow their doctrines but I will provide a way for them to accept the fullness of the gospel through temple work. You will know us by our fruits.

I can attest to groups who love Mormons and individuals (maybe groups) that hate Mormons using that too. I do not deny its use. Instead, I was interested in how the statement of doctrine was mis-characterized, and had to be only by "trying so hard".

[spartacus]

Funny how evangelicals will send me to hell if I do not follow their doctrines but I will provide a way for them to accept the fullness of the gospel through temple work. You will know us by our fruits.

As I have done already on this thread, and find myself doing often on this board (I have even turned down an opportunity or two), I shall point out that this statement could easily be changed to make the same point back to LDS.

For example, "Funny how LDS will send me to the damnation of eternal non-progression in the Terrestrial Kingdom if I do not follow their doctrines and prove worthy to go to and actually go to the temple, but I provide a way for them to accept the merit of Christ alone for return to the Father. You will know us by our fruits."

My point is that such points are inconsequential since they can be made to work equally well for the other group.

[spartacus]

They do. Few things are as amusing as an Atheist butting into a conversation where an Evangelical is trying to tell Mormon that his beliefs are strange.

I suspect so;)

[Storm Rider]

As I have done already on this thread, and find myself doing often on this board (I have even turned down an opportunity or two), I shall point out that this statement could easily be changed to make the same point back to LDS.

For example, "Funny how LDS will send me to the damnation of eternal non-progression in the Terrestrial Kingdom if I do not follow their doctrines and prove worthy to go to and actually go to the temple, but I provide a way for them to accept the merit of Christ alone for return to the Father. You will know us by our fruits."

My point is that such points are inconsequential since they can be made to work equally well for the other group.

I don't think you quite have a handle on LDS theology. We believe that regardless of church affiliation, it is possible to enter into Exaltation. We believe that God judges us on our willingness, our desire to serve him. It has more to do with learning truth and living it than anything else. Through the atonement of Jesus Christ he paid the price for all to enter into Exaltation. Further, the ordinances that the LDS Church teaches are needed for Exaltation will not be withheld from anyone that has ever lived, from Adam to the last person born on the earth.

God does not condemn the Aborigine who never heard of Jesus Christ, his gospel, or even God. Rather he has created a way for each of his children to return to him. Condemning an individual to hell who has never heard of Jesus Christ is not an example of a just, merciful God. It is a false characterization of God.

In Evangelical theology there is no need of repentance. Sin has no meaning; judgment does not exist because there are no works to judge. There are not many mansions in the Kingdom of God because everyone goes to one place if you accept Jesus. Everyone else gets to burn in hell whether they have heard of Jesus or not. There is so much of the scripture that is ignored in order to retain such a narrow understanding of scripture.

[mfbukowski]

So what do you think of the content of my points?

Do you really want to know?

It's a bunch of tired old ..... stuff..... not worth responding to.

[mfbukowski]

I don't think you quite have a handle on LDS theology. We believe that regardless of church affiliation, it is possible to enter into Exaltation. We believe that God judges us on our willingness, our desire to serve him. It has more to do with learning truth and living it than anything else. Through the atonement of Jesus Christ he paid the price for all to enter into Exaltation. Further, the ordinances that the LDS Church teaches are needed for Exaltation will not be withheld from anyone that has ever lived, from Adam to the last person born on the earth.

God does not condemn the Aborigine who never heard of Jesus Christ, his gospel, or even God. Rather he has created a way for each of his children to return to him. Condemning an individual to hell who has never heard of Jesus Christ is not an example of a just, merciful God. It is a false characterization of God.

In Evangelical theology there is no need of repentance. Sin has no meaning; judgment does not exist because there are no works to judge. There are not many mansions in the Kingdom of God because everyone goes to one place if you accept Jesus. Everyone else gets to burn in hell whether they have heard of Jesus or not. There is so much of the scripture that is ignored in order to retain such a narrow understanding of scripture.

Don't confuse him with the facts- his mind is made up and he knows everything.

[Calm]

they don't come about as "grown" children, but as babies, so "spirit babies" is what it is.

That would depend on what you mean as "babies". Would you consider labeling a freshman at college a baby in relation to a senior or grad student an appropriate or accurate way to describe the relationship?

What is actually taught?

“Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335).

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-2-our-heavenly-family?lang=eng

If one totally equates the spiritual experience to the physical, then "spirit babies" is a valid term, but that equation is not based on any LDS doctrine and is an assumption just like the assumption that women are "spiritually pregnant" when there is nothing that teaches that spiritual birth is the same process as a physical birth.

There is a significant difference between all the connotations that go along with "babies" and the concept of spiritual development that may have nothing to do with any material change (in the sense of the spirit matter with which we are created) and is more equivalent to acquiring further knowledge and physical growth. Plus there is no doctrine on how spirits are created/organized and there are even those who see becoming God's spirit children is a process of adoption, not anything analogous to physical birth so again using the term "babies" is inappropriate because of its implications, while using children is appropriate.

All we know of the growth of our first estate is that we were tested at the time of the Council in Heaven. Is it appropriate to call our spirits prior to that time "spirit babies" and after that "spirit adults"? Somehow I doubt such terms convey the information needed to understand LDS belief and is more confusing than illuminating, a good sign of a bad/inaccurate label.

Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

With some proper noun changes and deletion of "Restoration of the original" this would be the point of traditional Christians to the LDS Church. Irony.

Fair enough. It is a battle; we will see who wins. So far Mormonism seems to be winning, because in spite of all the persecution and misrepresentation by its detractors and enemies, it has gone from strength to strength; but Evangelicalism (and historical Christianity in general) is in decline.

I'm not quite sure who you are talking about when you say "we". If you mean you, zerinus, and those you personally know, than that is commendable. But I don't see the LDS Church making anything near that statement. I wish it would. If you have proof otherwise, please give me the source. I would greatly appreciate it.

It is well known that Mormons believe that early Christianity apostatized, which made necessary the Restoration. There is nothing secret about that. After the Protestant Reformation Christendom fragmented into a thousand pieces, of which Evangelicalism is one of the (nastier) fragments. So all of traditional Christianity is basically apostate, but some are more apostate than others. I would put it another way: There is a verse in the Book of Mormon which reads as follows:

2 Nephi 10:

16 Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.

By Zion in the above scripture is meant the Restored Church; and "whore of all the earth" is euphemism for the church of the devil. What that is basically saying is that anybody who fights against Restored (LDS) Church in the last days is part of the Church of the devil. A lot of Christians (and Christian churches) do that to some extent; but there is no Christian church or institution that does it more pro-actively and vehemently than the Evangelicals do. That puts Evangelical Christianity squarely in the camp of the church of the devil, simple as that. I am sure that does not apply to every single Evangelical. I have no doubt that there are many Evangelicals who are decent people, and to not approve of that kind of thing. They are excluded. But those who do, especially their ministers and activists who are very proactive in this kind of thing, without a doubt are part of the church of the devil. That is what the Book of Mormon teaches.

While I can commend you on the clarity and honesty of your position, I cannot do so about your last statement toward thinking. I don't know what the best way is to say it accept to quote it, "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."

Or, in the similar lyrics of the song "Proof of Your Love" by the band For King and Country,

"If I speak with a silver tongue

Convince a crowd but don't have love

I leave a bitter taste

With every word I say"

I said that tongue in cheek. No offence was intended.

Edited September 11, 2012 by zerinus

[Calm]

With some proper noun changes....... this would be the point of traditional Christians to the LDS Church. Irony.

Unless those proper nouns changes are equivalent meanings, I don't see much irony.

For example, there is a significant different in the meaning of the two sentences below that by your claim would be more or less identical:

I saw the President of the United States today. (proper noun: President of the United States)

I saw the Olympics today. (proper noun: Olympics)

That z's comment is evidence that each faith community promotes itself as the true faith and discounts others seems hardly ironic it seems to me. Plus there is no denial of the label Christian to those that LDS view as belonging to "Apostate Christianity" while there tends to be on the side of Evangelicals.

But perhaps my irony meter is defective.

PS: a person belonging to an organization that is part of "Apostate Christianity" can still be called a Christian due to their membership because while there are apostate beliefs, if the church teaches that their members should be following Christ, believing in him, etc.

Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

But I don't see the LDS Church making anything near that statement. I wish it would. If you have proof otherwise, please give me the source. I would greatly appreciate it.

I am curious as to why you are so interested in seeing if other LDS use the term "Apostate Christianity" as zerinus does*****. Surely there is plenty of evidence that LDS teach of an apostasy (often referred to as the "Great Apostasy") occurring within the Christian faith. See for example: http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

"Apostate Christianity" (or more often "an apostate Christianity") is not commonly used (3 examples in 40 years found at lds.org), but does occur on rare occasions among LDS. It does not mean that those organizations that are labeled such have left Christianity (which is why I and probably others prefer not to use it as this use can be confusing since apostasy is usually associated with leaving a faith), but rather that the original Christianity as taught by Christ and his disciples has been altered though not to the point it is unrecognizable as Christianity.

For the examples of its use, see:

The Prophet Joseph Smith said that this beast was “in the likeness of the kingdoms of the earth.” (JST, Rev. 13:1.) Kingdom, in a scriptural context, can mean any kind of institution, movement, force, or power—religious, political, or otherwise. In viewing John’s beast in the light of its context in Revelation 13 and other prophetic statements concerning the fall of the Church, we can identify it as the institutions or forces that prevailed over (or, more accurately, corrupted) true Christianity, leaving an apostate Christianity in its place.

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

For centuries apostate Christianity used the crucifixion of Jesus as an excuse for persecuting the Jews. Occasionally people still say, “This long history of rejection is the punishment for what they did to Jesus.”

http://seminar.lds.o...-02-1ne-2-5.asp

This scripture has put apostate Christianity on the horns of a dilemma. Those who pretend to hold to the teachings of Jesus deny a place in the kingdom to the countless people who have died without baptism. Others, rebelling against the apparent unfairness of such a situation, say that the Savior must not have meant what he said. They therefore reject it and deny the necessity for baptism as well as the other saving ordinances of the gospel.

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

If you choose to use these examples to demonstrate that LDS do not actually believe that those who claim to be Christian are actually still Christian but rather apostates to the Christian faith, you would be grievously abusing them btw.

******Perhaps I have missed what you were interested in and you are asking for examples of a "clear divide" between the LDS faith and other Christian faiths. If so, that would depend on what you mean by a "clear divide". The LDS Church certainly teaches there is a huge difference between our faith and others, for example the claim of the sole possession of God's priesthood authority or our faith being the only one to possess the salvific ordinances. I don't know how much clearer one can be than that there are significant differences.

OTOH, it is silly to ignore those things that we have in common with other Christian faiths; if someone is insisting on doing so because they are concerned that people will be confused and think LDS don't believe their faith is significantly different than other Christian faiths...well, that is silly as well.

Edited September 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[Gervin]

In Evangelical theology there is no need of repentance. Sin has no meaning; judgment does not exist because there are no works to judge.

This is idiocy. My EV Church was studying 1 John 1 this past Sunday. Read it if you want to try and understand traditional Christian theology. Your broadbrush simply paints ignorance.

[Gervin]

Don't confuse him with the facts- his mind is made up and he knows everything.

If you think this is a fact: "In Evangelical theology there is no need of repentance. Sin has no meaning; judgment does not exist because there are no works to judge" then you show very little knowledge about basic Christian beliefs (the traditional variation).

[Storm Rider]

This is idiocy. My EV Church was studying 1 John 1 this past Sunday. Read it if you want to try and understand traditional Christian theology. Your broadbrush simply paints ignorance.

I think it is idiocy also. Tell me, if I accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior today will I go to heaven regardless of what sins I may committ in the future? Do I have to repent of sins to be forgiven? If I don't repent of my sins, am I still saved? Let's start with these simple questions before we go any further in understanding EV theology.

[Vance]

I was only talking to you. But you seem unwilling to hear.

That happens when you use tired and old anti-Mormon rhetoric. Such rhetoric was specifically designed to shut down discussion and dialogue.

I said I would be willing to refer to "spiritual progeny" or "spirit children" if you preferred, you rejected that olive branch. You also seem unwilling to deal with the topic I was discussing, but insist on continuing on with your "I just stated a fact"/accusations.

It was difficult to see past your attempt to justify the phrase "spirit babies".

I never tried to tell you or any other LDS what you believe. Again I said "LDS SEEM to believe". Its subtle but there.

Sure you did, when you attempted to justify the phrase "spirit babies" as being an accurate description of our doctrine. Even while you were being told that it wasn't.

You can twist this all you want against me.

This is just projection.

In the end I said in a perfectly respectful tone and with the humility of "seem" a perfectly honest and respectable view of an institution's teachings.

LOL!!! yeah, right.

I realize that you think we are all stupid rubes, but seriously.

You have made a mountain out of two words, despite my honest reassurances and reasons. That is your right. I leave you to it.

Thou doth protest too much, methinks.