Replies

Y'all have some issues.

We are not alone.

I have never, unlike a good many on this thread, attacked a single Mormon theological doctrine.

Yet you spend time trying to tell me (in abeyance of the facts) that The BOM could not possibly be true because of DNA evidence? I could question whether or not you have a strong relationship with reality here.

I happen to think some are a little odd, but doctrines generally do look odd to outsiders.

On this I would have to agree.

I believe every single post I have made has been objecting to attempts to deny or change historical facts to protect the reputation of "The Church," or the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon or in the service of the odd Mormon fixation on getting in on the victim as saint business by portraying their early history as one of totally unprovoked persecution like that of the early Christians.

Funny, all I was doing was refuting Badly applied science which didn’t “Prove” the BOM wrong any more than not finding gold in your garden does.

Y'all are absolutely entitled to your own doctrines.

Why thank you, you can believe whatever you want too.

I don't care what kind of underwear you wear (or indeed whether you wear any),

I do, I get chafed otherwise, but that’s not a good topic for this forum…

and I don't care whether you think you will become Gods in the afterlife, and I don't care if your definition of the Trinity differs from that of most Christians or if you practiced polygamy in the past. We will all someday find out who's right about these issues, and I suspect all of us will find out we are at least partially wrong.

Undoubtably.

I do object to attempts to justify mass murder and betrayal, and to attempts to hide or distort historical facts to promote an inaccurate picture of past events.

I have never tried to do so, I have not accepted some evidence, and have expressed the opinion that there are some things we will never know. However, I have not tried to cover anything up. Denial of reality is the very essence of lunacy, and I will be sane.

I'll even give you the whole Indians as Jews business.

They are not Jews, but descendants of Joseph

That is so ludicrous to anyone who has studied pre-Columbian history that it is self-refuting. But there are very dangerous distortions about my history, the history of America, being promoted by some Mormons, and I will fight those.

Fine, I am not trying to edit history (or herstory either for you feminists out there)

I will, however, try to fight fair. I don't think anybody can review my posts and legitimately accuse me of attacking your religion.

This is where we part company, for what you have not perceived to be an attack has been felt as one. That is the whole victim, attacker thing that has been going on here. Statements that I see as harmless are taken as an attack on history, and statements that you see as harmless I see as an attack on my religion.

It’s all about perspective, you can’t see mine, and I can’t fully see yours.

Everybody is entitled to his own opinion (or doctrine). Nobody is entitled to his own facts.

On this I agree, the problem is with such different perspectives, which of us blind men feeling of the elephant is actually describing the whole thing?

None of us is.

Yet you spend time trying to tell me (in abeyance of the facts) that The BOM could not possibly be true because of DNA evidence?

I'm afraid I wasn't thinking of the description of "history" in the BOM as being doctrinal in nature, but rather history and therefore as appropriately subject to historical criticism as any other history.

But on second thought, if the history is not true then the BOM and everything in it, including its doctrine, is equally not true.

I now better understand why you defend its historicity so ferociously.

Don't take it personally. I've also gone round and round with a good many of the neo-confederates when they attempt (from my perspective) to distort history to support their position (political in their case, not religious).

Since I have no desire to damage anybody's faith, I've decided henceforth to stick to history since 1800 when discussing Mormonism.

I trust you won't object to that.