Is it acceptable for a Mormon to learn about the Catholic church, but still not want to join?

[TOmNossor]

Chris-WA1,

I don’t know that original poster and neither do you. My son just returned from his mission about a year ago and he knew much of the TRUTH behind the narrative of Grant Palmer you referenced earlier. But the CoJCoLDS truly believes that God answer prayers. The CoJCoLDS believes when the Bible says that we must KNOW God it doesn’t mean we better know that we are consubstantial with Jesus Christ like Catholics teach, but that we need to KNOW on an interpersonal level God. Much of Catholicism is theological precise but sometimes appears to be spiritually lacking. The CoJCoLDS is frequently not theologically precise, but is usually not spiritually lacking. So, if the OP KNOWS God, I think he will do fine on his mission.

I have some nuance in my belief as does every INFORMED Catholic who ever studied your history. That being said, I believe the BOM derives from ancient history. I believe the BOA is scripture. I believe Joseph Smith was visited by God the Father and God the Son. I don’t personally believe that God the Father had a Father. I believe the history of the translation of the BOM told at the Harmony Pennsylvania LDS visitor center and have for 1.5 decades (not the history depicted in popular artwork and believed/taught by many members >20 years ago). The only non-small problem IMO is the origin of the BOA and it is well supported by the strength associated with the ancient evidence for the BOM (and even some ancient evidence for the BOA). All that being said, informed Catholic must embrace Cardinal Newman, not only in his church shaking DEVELOPMENT theory which was called “Protestant” by American bishops and viewed with skepticism in Rome, but in his statement, “10,000 problems do not a doubt make.” If the Catholic Church had every one of the problems it has, had an ancient teaching that some book would be produced via revelation in 1830, and the BOM was produced by Pope Pius VIII, I think it would support the problems of Catholicism reasonably well just as I think the BOM support the problems of the CoJCoLDS quite well.

When you say:

The problem with the Mormon church lies at the very core of its truth claims.

…

Yes, I have issues with the Catholic Church in some areas, though I find its truth claims much more tenable than those of Mormonism.

I am reminded of my investigation of the Catholic Church after I was a LDS and BEFORE I had a real spiritual testimony to add to all the reasons I believed. The Catholic Church I left was not special. As I learned how special my former faith was, many Catholics told me I was going to be Catholic again. I was not convinced, but it was a much nicer message than the anti-Mormon message I often receive now. I was told to read the ECF, so I got copies of 1st Clement, all of Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp. I was sitting in my dining room 3 houses ago reading 1st Clement when I screamed, “He doesn’t know he is Pope.” I knew then that whatever was good in Catholicism was not a product of Peterine authority passing to the Bishop of Rome. It was all men consolidating power, a fraud. It was right there in 1st Clem.
…

 

[TOmNossor]

Now, I didn’t charge to my Catholic friends and try to destroy their faith. The CoJCoLDS is very missionary minded, but there are a lot of reasons I then (and now) considered that bad form (and neither necessary or helpful). But I knew “The problem with the Catholic Church lies at the very core of its truth claims.”

Later, I was asked repeatedly to share “the apostasy.” After offering some resistance, disclaimers and suggestions that Catholics should not read it, I shared. I thought the case against Catholicism was so obvious. I figured some folks would ignore it (and some did), some folks would place so much value on their experience with the Eucharist that Papal succession was not going to cause them to leave, and some folks would begin the journey to a faith that aligned with TRUTH.

Shockingly, this didn’t happen. On the board I posted I got a few responses, but not much. I mentioned it to an online Catholic friend who was far better versed in all of this. He pointed me to Cardinal Newman’s essay. After reading that and more dialogue, I began to see that this slam dunk was not so certain. I found many other things that I could bounce off my friend and each time he was aware of the difficulties and not shaken. But unlike the folks on what I called the “Pray for Patience” board he interacted with me. He shared his perceptions of strengths and weakness in the CoJCoLDS and in the Catholic Church. We are still friends and I now know a number of educated Catholics who can talk through these issues. I read Father Sullivan’s book From Apostles to Bishops and after an email with Father Sullivan, I read Robert Eno’s book Rise of the Papacy. It would have been easy to believe that Sullivan, Eno, and some of my very informed Catholic friends were just embracing an untenable “nuanced” view of Catholicism hopelessly at odds with truth and the historic claims of Catholicism, but I had too much respect for the folks I knew well. Maybe they were only Catholic because of the wonderful feelings they had when they partook of the Eucharist or prayed the rosary? But that was not what they claimed (though some claimed these feelings existed)?

I still think my position makes better sense of the data, but I no longer think about informed Catholics the way you speak about me and thousands of brilliant and informed LDS. I am sure that my “nuanced” is in the same universe as the “nuanced” of Father Sullivan and some of my friends. I continue to be convinced that my “nuanced” is a better read of the data than Father Sullivan or my friends, but unlike you I do not suggest that the “nuanced” is of a radically different type. Somehow God will work this all out.

If anyone is tempted to be stressed by this observation, then just remember I am a LDS. What I say can be dismissed. My religion is used as an argument when Catholics or Protestants debate, “you are wrong because you are like the Mormons.”

I liked the post to which I am responding better than your previous ones. I truly think you are at the place I was after reading 1st Clement and before I respected what my Catholic friends told me.

Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

When I was a kid, a family member whom was younger than I, had a little Mormon friend. When the friend’s parents figured out that my family member wasn’t Mormon, they wouldn’t let their kid play with my family member any more. I could say, well that was the 1970’s and things have changed.

Except, with my own daughter, she experienced the same in the early 2000’s.

To the OP, when you are a missionary, absolutely what you are allowed to read and study will be restricted.

 

[RebeccaJ]

An oldie but a goody

“There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful. Historians seem to take great pride in publishing something new, particularly if it illustrates a weakness or mistake of a prominent historical figure. For some reason, historians and novelists seem to savor such things. If it related to a living person it would come under the heading of gossip. History can be as misleading as gossip and much more difficult–often impossible–to verify. “Elder Boyd K. Packer,”The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect,” Fifth Annual Church Educational System Religious Educators’ Symposium, 22 August, 1981, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

See also, “September Six” and the “Strengthening Church Members Committee”.

 

[RebeccaJ]

@tomnossor maybe Patrick Madrid longs for the days of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Too bad, as he doesn’t have the authority to revive it and his opinions are his own. He has no authority for the entire Church. Your attempted comparison of LDS First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to Patrick Madrid, isn’t a comparison at all.

 

[TOmNossor]

@tomnossor maybe Patrick Madrid longs for the days of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Too bad, as he doesn’t have the authority to revive it and his opinions are his own. He has no authority for the entire Church. Your attempted comparison of LDS First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to Patrick Madrid, isn’t a comparison at all.

Rebecca,
Sometimes I think your new-fangled Catholicism is evidence of a more radical departure from the Catholicism I learned from Karl Keating, Patrick Madrid, Robert Sungenis, and many others than you accuse me of because I embrace teachings that are welcome and prevalent within the CoJCoLDS but not the ones you wish to declare are normative and required. That being said, Pope Francis does not believe about Catholicism what Keating and Madrid did (Sungenis has potentially moved in a more “rad/trad” direction, but this is not true of Keating and Madrid). This is clear enough.
So, I didn’t attempt to compare LDS leaders to Madrid in any case. I was just bringing up a fairly modern (2007) example of a PROMINENT Catholic apologist counseling his radio audience against studying the Bible with Protestants.
I find your Packer quote from 1981 to not be evidence for, “LDS leaders in venues like General Conference often tell the membership to refrain from looking elsewhere for information.” It is also much older than my Madrid quote. I find much about the September 6th incident unfortunate, but I would much rather have that in my faith’s history than volumes of excommunications, suppressions, inquisitions, and even murders as you have in yours.

I of course do not think nor did I imply that Madrid would want to bring back the Index of Librorum Prohibitorum. From what I know of him, I doubt he would advocate such a thing (I have met him in person and participated on his message board after that). That being said, he is aware that many Catholics are not prepared to deal with the difficult things that anti-Catholics share with them (or as Pup7 pointed out reading the Bible with the emphasis Protestants place upon it even when explicitly anti-Catholic ideas are not foisted upon them).
Anyway, I agree that Patrick Madrid and Karl Keating are not Catholic prelates. They were and are mainstream Catholic apologists who have received Imprimaturs and other votes of confidence from Catholic prelates.
I wonder if you would like to defend positions supported or espoused by modern Catholic prelates. I will suggest that Elder Packer’s quote is unfortunate. I am thankful that Elder Maxwell and many others in the years since have offered a more moderated view of how one might present history. I am also thankful that the transition from Packer’s older positions (which he didn’t share frequently during the last 10 years of his life) to the positions of President Nelson, Oaks, and Eyring is no where near as radicle as the move from Pope John Paul II to Pope Francis (I am also encouraged by these developments within the CoJCoLDS and I find the developments under Pope Francis to weaken Catholic truth claims).
Charity, TOm

 

[Sedona]

I don’t think it’s disrespectful. To the contrary, I think that anyone who takes the time to read the sacred scriptures of another religion is being respectful enough to read and consider rather than dismiss something you never checked out. I am currently reading the Book of Mormon. I am not a Mormon. I just happened to come upon it in the course of reading and studying a number of religions over the past 20 years. The Vedic scriptures took ten of those years to properly understand. And without making any judgments on one religion or another, the few Mormons I have met over time have been very kind and genuine people. The Book of Mormon is quite interesting.

 

[Onthisrock84]

The Popes roll evolved. I think the problem at hand is you are only viewing it from a western Christianity perspective. Yes Clement was pope however at the time being the pope wasn’t dogma to be infallible. In fact to this day the Orthodox Church of Antioch claims Saint Peter to be their first Pateiarch as well.
The office of the bishop of Rome evolved, or through divine revelation changed.
One could say it was by the Holy Spirit it was revealed, sort of like the LDS were divinely inspired in the 1890s that polygamy was no longer acceptable. There was no apostasy. Interestingly Mormons should receive the Shepherd of Hermas as scripture as well. It promotes further public revelation. And since they believe in an apostasy I never understood how that apostasy church got all of the New Testament canon correct in 397 A.D. in Carthage.
You believe one mans claim but deny the hundreds of saints who had very similar experiences with either Christ or Mary? Our Lady of Fatima was experienced by hundreds of people. Joseph Smith was just him and some guy translating a language that never even existed. The Book of Abraham is the most disturbing as poor Joe must have not realized in the 20th century Egyptologists would exist who could really translate it and it says absolutely nothing of what he claimed it did. All it was was literally a funeral rite of passage for burial for ancient Egyptians. The amount of forgery in the Book of Mormon is very concerning. Somehow Paul’s words are nearly word for word in books claiming to be written centuries before he was even born. I study history and I remember meeting with missionaries a few years back and just the amount of ignorance they expected me to harness greatly disturbed me. I asked questions which they could not answer and the appealed to me just to let the spirit confirm the BOM. That is not how anyone should think. I can read the Communist Manifesto and feel good by it but it won’t make me become a communist. The Book is really concerning, and I truly believe it is from Satan, along with most of those apocalyptic groups that sprang out of the Second great awakening in the United States in the 19th century. Joseph Smith was not the only person at that time to claim divine revelation, actually it was the trademark of many of the groups that popped up around the time. The SDA for example. Ellen G White claimed to have visions of Christ and revelation of the truth etc.
I am open to learning about NRMs but no offense but to believe the history of the Mormon Church, which itself broke into apostasy by their criteria which is why theres one church in Salt Lake City and another in Independence Missouri, raises some real questions. I remember bringing that up to the missionaries too. That every season they gave me of why the early church fell into apostasy also happened in Mormonism. Nearly all of the original “witnesses” left the church. The Church broke into 2 following the death of Smith. The one church ceased and taught different teachings. Happened right in Mormonism.

 

[Onthisrock84]

There is only one Church and it didn’t spring up 1800 years after the fact by some American Protestant during a time which people were thinking the end was at hand. It was all hysteria. People claim he couldn’t have written the Book but it relies on the same premise as the View of Hebrews written a few years before and also just on bible passages. The same lines from many of the deuterocanonical books are in the BOM. Which makes sense since the original KJV did include them all. The fact that animals and weapons that didn’t exist in the Americas at the time are in the book do it no justice. That and absolutely no archeological evidence has ever been found supporting it. I can go to Israel and see the places the Bible describes. You can’t do that with anything the BOM describes. Some Mormon archeologists make weird claims but it’s all just theories. The fact that nothing has ever been found especially in that last battle when both sides were basically destroyed in 500 A.D. and would have put Gettysburg to shame , that absolutely nothing has ever been found to back that battle up historically is so troublesome. Much older artifacts have been found. As battle of that size would have left some artifacts to be found.
My final result. It’s a fraud. Please leave that false religion. When you find out like most ex Mormons you will be so angry that you will lose faith in God totally. Most ex mormons end up atheists unfortunately. My neighbor was a Mormon from birth and now just doesn’t believe in anything. Most when finding out how much they were lied too just turn from God all together. It is best to show charity but I notice when it comes to these groups who came from the awakening such as Mormons, SDA, JW, etc; you really need to show them evidence to make them question their beliefs. That’s what they have tried to do to me in the past in dialogue. It would work on most people who don’t have a grasp on Church history too. I sense that. It’s dangerous when prostetyzing groups thrive off of simple minded people.
But hopefully in the future it will just be like the BOM says so annoyingly much.
And it came to pass.

 

[TOmNossor]

The Popes roll evolved. I think the problem at hand is you are only viewing it from a western Christianity perspective. Yes Clement was pope however at the time being the pope wasn’t dogma to be infallible. In fact to this day the Orthodox Church of Antioch claims Saint Peter to be their first Pateiarch as well.
The office of the bishop of Rome evolved, or through divine revelation changed.

If you claim that the Papacy developed, you will be alignment with Dr. Eno, Father Sullivan, and Cardinal Newman.
If you claim that “divine revelation changed” what was the early papacy into a later papacy, you are adopting a position at odds with about 1800 years of Tradition and specifically denied at Vatican I (and I think Vatican II). Shortly after Tertullian embraced the “new revelation” the rest of Christianity made it clear that the Montanist prophets hadn’t received revelation and that the true Christian leaders did not receive revelation (did not receive public/corporate revelation, all Christians can still receive private revelation).
I also made/make a someone different claim that you seem to have seen. It took time for mono-episcopal Bishops to emerge, more time for Metropolitans (Bishops of important cities that had authority over other Bishops), more time for Patriarchs, and more time still for the Papacy. In the spirit of anti-Mormonism that I am criticizing, I can deride this as humans taking power to themselves. It has happened throughout history in governments, school systems, crime syndicates, trade organizations, …. Alternatively, I can appreciate that faithful Catholics see this a valid developments organically grown from the Apostles and their “Co-workers.”
Of course the rest of your post suggests I should channel the anti-Catholics rather than acknowledge stuff from Eno or Sullivan.

Interestingly Mormons should receive the Shepherd of Hermas as scripture as well. It promotes further public revelation. And since they believe in an apostasy I never understood how that apostasy church got all of the New Testament canon correct in 397 A.D. in Carthage.

I am a fan of the Shepherd of Hermas. He said that a “another and much inferior place” would soon replace the divine church. I believe this happened. After this happened God restored the divine church (which can receive revelation just like God’s leaders in the Old Testament and God’s leaders in the New Testament). BTW, LDS use the Bible, but they neither claim it is inerrant nor complete. It is my position that it is scripture and it is sufficient, but that it is not some PERFECT expression of authority by a group of Bishops in the 4th century.
Can you acknowledge that this well answers your criticism and thus withdraw your criticism?
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

You believe one mans claim but deny the hundreds of saints who had very similar experiences with either Christ or Mary? Our Lady of Fatima was experienced by hundreds of people.

I have been posting here for more that 10 years. I do not think I have denied “hundreds of saints who had very similar experiences with either Christ or Mary.” I have regularly spoken approvingly of St. Thomas Aquinas’s experience with God toward the end of his life.
That being said, there are hundreds of experiences of the divine involving hundreds of people documented in early LDS history (and in truth, while not document such things continue in LDS congregations today).
I might say, you believe an ancient story about Peter’s authority passing to the Bishop or Rome first written in a fraudulent document produced in the 4th century (Clementine Recognitions) and deny the experience of hundreds of Saints (LDS).

The Book of Abraham is the most disturbing

Agreed. But, there are a handful of POSSIBLE explanations, just none that are compelling IMO.

The amount of forgery in the Book of Mormon is very concerning. Somehow Paul’s words are nearly word for word in books claiming to be written centuries before he was even born.

The “translation” of the BOM relies upon the KJV of the Bible IMO. And yet Joseph Smith didn’t use the KJV of the Bible as he dictated hour after hour. In addition to this, the number of books critics have claimed were involved in the production of the BOM is growing each year. I have looked through all these claims and two things remain. Other than the Bible, there is no evidence Joseph Smith had these books and NONE of them (including the Bible) were used during the “translation.” More important that this though is that there are still aspects of the BOM that are unexplainable from these books that I find impossible to exist without supernatural sources.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

to let the spirit confirm the BOM. That is not how anyone should think. I can read the Communist Manifesto and feel good by it but it won’t make me become a communist. The Book is really concerning, and I truly believe it is from Satan

I do not agree that seeking God’s spirit is “not how anyone should think.” In fact, I believe asking God is the prescription the Bible suggests. “If any of ye lack wisdom, ask …” OR more pertinently:

9And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. 10For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 11If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? 12Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? 13If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

This is important, it says that we can ask God and God WILL answer truthfully.

You have mixed your arguments IMO. Either the BOM is a human forgery or it is a product of Satan. Satan is an ancient spiritual being who has been deceiving humans since before there was a Catholic Pope. If the BOM is a product of Satan the ONLY way we can know is by praying to God to know. Have you done that? Do you have some other method of rooting out which of us is following Satan? If this is your position, I think you need to start praying because it might be you who is deceived by Satan. Alternatively, the CoJCoLDS could be God’s church and you will grow sufficiently as a Catholic and will recognize that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God after you die and still be welcomed into God’s kingdom. My biggest fear for you would be if you know the CoJCoLDS is God’s church and you reject it for some reason.
The position of the Catholic Church as taught by 100% of it Bishops and leaders until the 19th (or maybe as late as the early 20th) century is that all who are not Catechumens, Martyrs, or Catholics will be in hell. The MODERN Catholic position is a little better, but it is still you who must believe that all LDS spiritual experiences are pathways to hell. I can accept that many or most Catholic miracles are a product of God’s inclusivist love of His children. The only thing I assert is that your miracle stories if true are not evidence that my church is untrue.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

but to believe the history of the Mormon Church, which itself broke into apostasy by their criteria

This is simply not true.
Here is my favorite apostacy understanding that points squarely at the CoJCoLDS as God’s church and the Catholic Church as the “lesser organization” the Pastor of Hermas was told would be in place of the divine church.
Christ leads God’s church through men who can receive revelation and write scripture. This was true in the Old Testament, it was true in the New Testament, and it is true in the Restoration Testament. It is not true in the Catholic Church and has been specifically denied since the 3rd century. To RESTORE the Divine Church, God had to go to a man who was not committed to the Catholic or Protestant denial of continued public revelation. Thus, the apostasy is the absence of and the denial of the ability to receive public revelation AND the restoration is God’s reinstituting a Divine Church lead by revelation.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

That and absolutely no archeological evidence has ever been found supporting it. I can go to Israel and see the places the Bible describes. You can’t do that with anything the BOM describes. Some Mormon archeologists make weird claims but it’s all just theories.

How about this claim.
I believe that the Biblical book of Exodus derives from true history, but there is more supporting archeological evidence for the BOM than for the Book of Exodus.
The BOM begins in Jerusalem, an ancient city. It describes a journey down the Frankincense trail through multiple geographic landmarks unknowable by Joseph Smith. The small band of travelers arrives at a place named Nahom. The inscription NHM was found in the right place and from the correct ancient time. Lehi’s party turned here and went to the Bountiful. Which was described as an oasis like area in the Arabian dessert. This too is exactly where it should be. It is call Khor Kharfot.
The “new world” archeology is much less striking. My favorite find is Teotihuacan where there is a convergence of “lack of trees,” “many waters,” “the land Northward (relative to the rest of the proposed geography for the BOM in this area),” and the archeological find of manmade “cement.”
Concerning your problems with animals and weapons and … LDS have been discussing these for years. There are IMO reasonable solutions.
I do not think the situation has changed MUCH since this article was written:
“Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?”

It’s dangerous when prostetyzing groups thrive off of simple minded people.

According to the PEW study, LDS know their faith and general religion questions better than Catholics and Protestants.
Two other studies showed that in general Christians who become more educated become less committed to their faith, but that LDS Christians who become more educated become more committed to their faith.
It may help you to believe that LDS are simple and it is obviously false, and I know it may help some LDS to believe that Catholics are ignorant of their history and it is obviously false; but neither of those is as solid of position as either group might hope.
I am a former Catholic and what prevents me from being a Catholic who has some issues with 20th century changes, some issues with other things, and a big problem with Pope Francis; is that I am a committed LDS. I believe LDS truth claims are intellectually stronger than Catholic truth claims. AND I have spiritual confirmation that came AFTER my conversion for intellectual reasons.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

In the 1970’s as Patrick Madrid became prominent

He was born in 1960.

 

[abucs]

There is no thinking in the church that it is disrespectful to learn even if you do not want to join.

We are flattered that you would like to know more. I am also interested in Buddhism and a Buddhist friend is also more than happy to talk about what Buddhism means to him. He knows that I will not become a Buddhist but of course it is natural for him to hope I would.

Enjoy,

 

[gazelam]

When I was a kid, a family member whom was younger than I, had a little Mormon friend. When the friend’s parents figured out that my family member wasn’t Mormon, they wouldn’t let their kid play with my family member any more. I could say, well that was the 1970’s and things have changed.

My parents both were both born and raised in the Salt Lake valley. Both are descendants of LDS pioneers. Both served missions and graduated from BYU. Upon graduation my parents moved to an area where 1%-2% of the population was LDS which is where I was raised. My parents never forbid me from having non-LDS friends. My spouse’s parents were converts and raised in an area with a similar LDS demographic as where I was raised. My spouse is still in touch with non-LDS friends from high school. I have never heard LDS leadership give general counsel the LDS membership to not associate with non-LDS.

 

[gazelam]

“There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful. Historians seem to take great pride in publishing something new, particularly if it illustrates a weakness or mistake of a prominent historical figure. For some reason, historians and novelists seem to savor such things. If it related to a living person it would come under the heading of gossip. History can be as misleading as gossip and much more difficult–often impossible–to verify. “Elder Boyd K. Packer,”The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect,” Fifth Annual Church Educational System Religious Educators’ Symposium, 22 August, 1981, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Every once in a while CAF delightfully suprises by bringing forth pure light. Thanks for sharing!!

 

[RebeccaJ]

I find your Packer quote from 1981 to not be evidence for, “LDS leaders in venues like General Conference often tell the membership to refrain from looking elsewhere for information.” It is also much older than my Madrid quote. I find much about the September 6th incident unfortunate, but I would much rather have that in my faith’s history than volumes of excommunications, suppressions, inquisitions, and even murders as you have in yours.

Yes the new fangled Catholicism of Oscar Romero, or Dorothy Day, or Pope Benedict XVI.

But it’s ok, I hold no belief that there is the right or wrong way to be Catholic. Nor a right or wrong way to be LDS. I kind of bristle at the bureaucratic versions of either. But whatever. People do what people do.

I only point out what LDS members like yourself choose to ignore. And like most, you collapse into a tantrumed and teary heap of ad hominem and irrelevant tangents.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, whitewashing history is delightful and pure.