From: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM (Frank Farkas)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Still no Retraction
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:31:27 GMT
Reply-To: farkas@qual.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: qual



Robert Weiss wrote:

>	What I take exception to is the portrayal of these discussions 
>as "bashing." While I have seen "bashing" on this discussion, most of 
>the discussions have focused on historical and scriptural evidence 
>that discounts the Mormon church. Certainly, this may be unpleasant
>to those in the Mormon church. However, this is not "bashing" the 
>individual. The individual bashing that I saw came to an individual 
>who chose to mention her former experiences.

I guess we need to deal with the defination of bashing. Here is mine:

1. Being judgemental and closed minded (i.e. "I got the truth and nothing
   but the whole truth", and "I am right and you are wrong", type of attitude).

2. Mindlessly bringing up the same old accusations dealing with a 
   person's faith and belief.

3. Never acknowledging when an accusations may not be true. Never retract 
   anything, even when some things are shown to be baseless.

4. Attacking beliefs.

5. Being double minded by applying a different standard to someone
   elses's beliefs (i.e. picking on some inconsistencies regarding the
   "first vision" while ignoring the three different stories given by
   Paul of his encounter of Jesus on the Damascus road).

5. By judging a person's beliefs by a standard the person never claimed,
   and should never be applied (i.e. the defination of a prophet).

6. Quickly changing the subject when it appears that a valid response is 
   given to a specific accusation

7. Add your own here....
 	  


>	By bringing this bashing to attention was to try and draw a 
>distinction between bashing and discussion. To some people, there is 
>the attempt to identify any discussion that is critical of the LDS 
>church as "bashing." I wish to underline that there is quite a 
>distinction between the two.

There is a major difference between bashing and discussions. For example,
Antony Rose made a claim that our beliefs that the Father has a body is
not scriptural and illogical. When I tried to address the issues with him
he tried to change the subject. When I insisted that we remain with the
issue he disappeared from the scene. He wouldn't respond. I tried to carry
on a discussion regarding the subject but he was not interested in it at all.

>	I wouldn't be too quick to term it burn out. I have quite a 
>few letters that I am waiting for responses from. It seems that no one 
>wants to address certain issues. It also appears that 
>the position of defending the Mormon church from historical and 
>scriptural evidence has proved to be indefensible.

I have no problem at all addressing any issue, but only via a two way
discussion where people can be civil about the issues and can respect 
each other's views, even if they are in conflict. 

I have no problem at all with your expression of beliefs, and I have no
intention at all to attack them. You are free to believe as you wish. I 
hope that you will grant me the same.

With brotherly love,

		Frank