Replies

I have observed repeatedly that attempting to read “the other guy’s” mind, and presuming to know his beliefs, his thought patterns, his practices better than he knows them, serves no good purpose.

- - - - - - -
That presumes 2 things. 1) That the ‘other guy’ is actually telling the truth about his teachings/practices/beleifs and 2) that the person involved does not know the other guys beliefs (or churches beliefs) better or has not been a member of that church.

For example, as a former Mormon, I am keenly aware of LDS beliefs/history/practices and I do know them better than most members (and did when I was LDS), furthermore I am aware (and was guilty of when I was LDS) of their practice of ‘lying for the Lord’ where omission obfuscation and outright lying is considered ok as long as it protects the Mormon church.

Finally, I am often attacked, without any proof, of taking things out of context, lying, etc. when I can (and do) back up my assertions while those who attack me do not.

There are some who will hate you, lie about you, and attack you just because you are telling them the truth, in a loving manner but because they do not like the MESSAGE, they attack the MESSENGER.

The Message of Christ crucified is offensive to many.

That presumes 2 things. 1) That the ‘other guy’ is actually telling the truth about his teachings/practices/beleifs and 2) that the person involved does not know the other guys beliefs (or churches beliefs) better or has not been a member of that church.

I have found that presuming those two things is always a good idea. As much as I may be convinced that the other guy is a pathological liar (or worse) and grossly ignorant of everything, I have never seen any good result from introducing that belief into the discussion.

Let us say, for sake of discussion, that I was once a Communist but have since repudiated Communism. I would, I think, discuss what I once believed as a Communist, and the basis of that belief. I would discuss what I considered orthodox Communist teaching. I would not presume to know what a current Communist believes, and I would be sure to interpret Communist writings the way I did as a Communist, when I actually believed them.

If Communism is as bad as we on this forum believe it to be, there's no need to exaggerate, distort, or misrepresent its tenets. They damn themselves well enough without our help.

There are some who will hate you, lie about you, and attack you just because you are telling them the truth, in a loving manner but because they do not like the MESSAGE, they attack the MESSENGER.

ABSOLUTELY that happens! They attack Jesus because of His Message, HIS Word.

And then invite others to attack you in their own way. I'd say the church is like politics in many ways and add 'who you know' to the mix.

For example, as a former Mormon, I am keenly aware of LDS beliefs/history/practices and I do know them better than most members (and did when I was LDS), furthermore I am aware (and was guilty of when I was LDS) of their practice of ‘lying for the Lord’ where omission obfuscation and outright lying is considered ok as long as it protects the Mormon church.

You seem to be saying that any Mormon who disagrees with you is either (1) less well informed than you are about Mormonism, or (2) lying about Mormonism. Is that what you meant to suggest?