R
RebeccaJ
Guest
You can google Nibley easily enough on your own.
You’re providing old articles of the peep stone translation accounts, in order to assert that the accounts should have been well known. I think you know they were not and are purposely gaslighting.
Maybe you were shocked maybe you weren’t, but it is disingenuous to imply that the general Mormon population was taught this version of events by the Mormon Church. You are rewriting events to suggest they did.
I don’t think you understand what fringe means. Some of the Catholic authors you list are widely read, by Catholics and non-Catholics. It was a very true blue Mormon who informed me that they viewed groups like FAIR and FARMS, as “fringie”. Your references are regularly, and almost exclusively, from the fringes.
Bringing up 2000 years of history in a weekly 10 minute homily, would be “interesting” if not supremely weird and irrelevant to Mass. Homilies usually take on topics from the daily readings. For example, today was the parable of the Good Samaritan, and the homily was about that reading.
Catechumens ask every question you can think of and there is nothing that is off limits, taboo, or anti-Catholic to bring up. People have the time to study any topic in depth they wish. So these what-about diversions you trot out, are not comparable, since Mormonism has nothing that is comparable.
We don’t shy away or try to whitewash bad Catholics, history or bad Popes. More current Popes have apologized on behalf of the Church for past transgresses…something that would go a long ways towards people viewing Mormonism in a better light. As far as I can tell, a Mormon leader will never apologize for anything because Mormons don’t apologize for their wrongs. They rewrite the events instead.
I don’t know Runnels, I only know of him. His CES letter came out decades after I left Mormonism, but I find he organized his thoughts and topics well. I don’t know how devastating his material is to anyone. I’ve never met anyone IRL who has brought him up. I only see him talked about online. Active Mormons worry over him and talk about him online, far more than anyone else that I read. So he must have hit some nerves, I guess.
My experience with normal everyday Mormons, who are my friends and family, is that they Believe, and there could be 10000000 pieces of evidence showing Smith to be a fraud, and their religion just made up from the imagination of a few individuals, and they would still Believe, because that is what Mormons do.
Runnel’s knowledge of the Trinity is superficial but also irrelevant to his point that Mormon doctrines about God, changed, substantially, over time. Smith’s changing doctrine about deity, is well documented, and done so long before Runnels started writing his letter.
You focus on minutia while ignoring what is actually being said.
You’re providing old articles of the peep stone translation accounts, in order to assert that the accounts should have been well known. I think you know they were not and are purposely gaslighting.
Maybe you were shocked maybe you weren’t, but it is disingenuous to imply that the general Mormon population was taught this version of events by the Mormon Church. You are rewriting events to suggest they did.
I don’t think you understand what fringe means. Some of the Catholic authors you list are widely read, by Catholics and non-Catholics. It was a very true blue Mormon who informed me that they viewed groups like FAIR and FARMS, as “fringie”. Your references are regularly, and almost exclusively, from the fringes.
Bringing up 2000 years of history in a weekly 10 minute homily, would be “interesting” if not supremely weird and irrelevant to Mass. Homilies usually take on topics from the daily readings. For example, today was the parable of the Good Samaritan, and the homily was about that reading.
Catechumens ask every question you can think of and there is nothing that is off limits, taboo, or anti-Catholic to bring up. People have the time to study any topic in depth they wish. So these what-about diversions you trot out, are not comparable, since Mormonism has nothing that is comparable.
We don’t shy away or try to whitewash bad Catholics, history or bad Popes. More current Popes have apologized on behalf of the Church for past transgresses…something that would go a long ways towards people viewing Mormonism in a better light. As far as I can tell, a Mormon leader will never apologize for anything because Mormons don’t apologize for their wrongs. They rewrite the events instead.
I don’t know Runnels, I only know of him. His CES letter came out decades after I left Mormonism, but I find he organized his thoughts and topics well. I don’t know how devastating his material is to anyone. I’ve never met anyone IRL who has brought him up. I only see him talked about online. Active Mormons worry over him and talk about him online, far more than anyone else that I read. So he must have hit some nerves, I guess.
My experience with normal everyday Mormons, who are my friends and family, is that they Believe, and there could be 10000000 pieces of evidence showing Smith to be a fraud, and their religion just made up from the imagination of a few individuals, and they would still Believe, because that is what Mormons do.
Runnel’s knowledge of the Trinity is superficial but also irrelevant to his point that Mormon doctrines about God, changed, substantially, over time. Smith’s changing doctrine about deity, is well documented, and done so long before Runnels started writing his letter.
You focus on minutia while ignoring what is actually being said.
Last edited: