why me Posted July 21, 2013 Author Posted July 21, 2013 (edited) For the record, I thought Bloom's diatribe in the New York Times was completely unfair and I'm sure more than a few people used it to justify their bigotry against voting for a Mormon for POTUS. Even though I'm aware of his earlier, kinder words towards us, I thought it odd that Robert would use him as an example of a dispassionate third-party observer (I assume he was unaware of this more recent piece).I believe that Bloom regretted this statement because it showed him to be very prejudice against mormons. But it was an emotional reaction and not a very intellectual reaction. It was beneath him to make such a statement. But it is understandable when we consider that he was just a human being who had happened to publish books and who was a wonderful professor. He got caught up in the moment and reacted from emotion and not from intellect.We see this with people who have left the church. They also react from emotion when they are critical of the church, especially when it comes to the 11 witnesses and Elizabeth Cowdery. The bottom line for the critics when addressing her is: she was a stupid gullible woman. Edited July 21, 2013 by why me
omni Posted July 21, 2013 Posted July 21, 2013 We see this with people who have left the church. They also react from emotion when they are critical of the church, especially when it comes to the 11 witnesses and Elizabeth Cowdery. The bottom line for the critics when addressing her is: she was a stupid gullible woman.Those are some pretty broad stripes you're painting.
why me Posted July 21, 2013 Author Posted July 21, 2013 Those are some pretty broad stripes you're painting.Years of experience on the boards has given me this impression. We can see this when we discuss Elizabeth. Oliver lied...never told Elizabeth the truth after years of being together in and out of the church, she still believed his book of mormon experience, she was gullible. What else can the critics say?
Recommended Posts