Of course, there's no difference. You can't see it. The posters here can't see it. So obviously there's no difference. Well, I'm sorry to break your heart, beastie, but just about everyone else sees it. But, please yourself. After all, it took you five years to wake up to what I was saying about Steve Benson when he first started posting in 2002. Not to worry. I am patient.
Of course there’s a difference to you. The church is true. Satan fights against it. People who fight against it are in open opposition to God. So of course any pejorative term is justified, just like pejorative terms would be justified against Luther.
Am I right?
“Everyone else sees it.” No, Ray, only believing Mormons see it. Very few others would.
You take a good look at that list of adjectives I supplied. I bet the only reason you would be able to differentiate between the pejoratives used by yourself and church leaders versus those used by angry exmormons is because the quotes are from other threads on this board.
So it isn’t the terms, in and of themselves, that you differentiate. It is the
context of the pejoratives. And the context is that one group is attacking believing Mormons, and the other attack exmormons.
Mormons are justified in their attacks, because the church is true, and what they say is correct. Exmormons aren’t justified because they are Satan’s tools in fighting the truth, and they lie.
That sums up your position, as far as I can see. I just never realized that this issue is as black and white for you as it is very any other believing MADdite.
I want to remind you of Orson Pratt’s statement – and he was not alone in this sentiment:
" this book must be either true or false, if false it is one of the most cunning wicked bold deep-laid impositions ever pawned upon the world. Calculated to deceive and ruin millions who will really receive it as the word of God and suppose themselves securely built upon the rock of truth, until they are plunged with their families into hopeless despair. The nature of the message in the Book of Mormon is such if true no one can possibly be saved and rejected. If false no one can possibly be saved and receive it. If after a rigid examination it be found an imposition it should be extensively published to the world as such the evidences and arguments upon which the imposter was detected should be clearly and logically stated. So that those who have been sincerely yet unfortunately deceived may perceive the nature of the deception and be reclaimed. And that those who continue to publish the delusion may be exposed and silenced by evidences adduced from scripture and reason."
According to him, if people do, indeed, ascertain that the Book of Mormon is a fraud, they have a moral responsibility to expose it.
According to modern apologists, if people ascertain that the Book of Mormon is a fraud, they have moral responsibility to
shut up.
Why the change?