[an error occurred while processing this directive]

from the newsgroup alt.religion.mormon:

>>>I've never seen the Godmakers. I'll take your word for it that it is a vile, loathsome film.<<<

I HAVE seen it, shown at an Assembly of God service and it was such a parody of LDS beliefs that I had a hard time suppressing my laughter. It got so ridiculous that the four of us (My wife, Arialle, another couple also former LDS) got the giggles.

>>>What are all these lies that anti-mormons use?<<<

Everybody is lying, M, including the both of us, and if you don't believe it, just ask anybody about those with whom he disagrees. The basic problem with religious contention is that it is a case of pot calling kettle black. When you get down to the bottom line, nobody has anything substantial enough to sell without a liberal dose of faith and a lot of circular reasoning.

One incident during the (after Godmakers) AoG worship service: One of the film's criticisms was that the LDS put pressure on their young to be pure, not to sin, to prepare for missions, and this pressure drove them insane. Immediately following the film the 3 piece suits leading the service "invited" (read harassed) those in the congregation to come up and repent for their transgressions and a girl of about 14, with great difficulty and extreme emotional distress, approached the podium to confess, apparently in near hysteria, sobbing and trembling uncontrollably. "When the LDS do it, it's damaging, but when WE do it, it's helpful". "Why?" "Because we have the TRUE truth and they don't". "How do you know?" "Because we have faith". Who's on first base---- HAAEEEAAAAAY AAABBBOOOOOTTTTTT.

>>>I've been called an anti-mormon and I'd like to know where I'm lying or deliberatedly misrepresenting.<<<

Most of those who contend with the LDS are not so much lying, IMO, as they are selling what they've been taught to believe without exhibiting the fairness of mind to examine the other side ---FROM THE OTHER SIDE'S REPRESENTATIVES. Would you, as a juror, trust the defendant to fairly and accurately give the prosecution's case against him?

It is a testimony to the weakness of religious evidence that attackers and defenders so often resort to ad hominem, denials, misrepresentations (whether deliberate or from ignorance on the subject), circular arguments, pleas for leaps of faith, begged questions, demands for proof of negatives, and reliance on THEIR interpretation of scripture, often totally abandoning all attempts at exegesis. Yes, atheists do it too. (but very rarely :<) [an error occurred while processing this directive]