posted
I'm still waiting for an atheist candidate for President. I want to see if that'll be received better or worse than a candidate from a rival Christian denomination. I honestly can't tell. I think the lots-of-haters will actually hate a bit less, but the not-so-muches will hate a bit more.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I still don't think you can say it's "quite different" from what members of other churches have been describing.
But it is quite different. Or do you not think there's quite a difference between a mostly passive, non-sect-specific doctrine and an active "education" session of the type that was being discussed?
I agreed that you're not taking it to the degree that some other churches do. I disagree that it's quite different. Our definitions may differ, and that's fine. I am of a very inclusive branch of Christianity. To me, there's not much difference between occasionally (once a year? Once every couple of years? How often do you think it happens, in the churches that do it?) bringing someone in to agressively address the issue and quietly, passively, taking it as a given all the time as part of your doctrine that everyone else is wrong.
quote: I believe the indignance, if it exists, is that some churches bring in "experts" whose job is to "expose" the LDS church as a cult, as a non-Christian religion, as a bunch of Scott R-esque baby-eaters, etc.
Look, I know most churches don't do that. But some do. I've seen the flyers. I've talked to many of those who have attended such meetings/services. There is nothing remotely similar to that in the LDS church. If you don't see a distinction, well, fair enough. But I see a huge one.
I completely agree that people spreading baby-eater type lies about Mormons are out of line. I have no doubt that there is nothing similar in the LDS church.
You agree that most churches don't do it. I would say that even among churches that do have meetings about Mormons, most of them are in response to some of their members being visited by missionaries and asking questions, and the church responding by having a session outlining the differences and why they believe what they do. Because I would venture to guess that most Mormons know the main points of difference. I had no idea before I started hanging out here, even though I had dated a former Mormon. And since I've started hanging out here, it's come up in conversation with a couple of other people, and none of them have had any idea, either. Anyway, back on topic. . . so, a small percentage of churches have meetings about what the differences are and how to witness to Mormons. Of those, it's probably a small percentage that are the inflammatory type you are objecting to. I will give you that those are quite different. The type Belle is talking about? Sorry, but no.
quote:
quote:But I think the vast majority of Christian denominations are rather inclusive about what "types" of Christians they believe have full benefits in the afterlife.
I disagree, but I'm not sure how this fits into the discussion so I'll leave it be.
Fair enough. I think I could explain why I think it fits, but I've honestly spent enough time on this topic for tonight. I'm really not all that invested in it, it's just kinda interesting. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only reason I'd be happy with an LDS president is that I could use the phrase, "The first openly Mormon president."
You know, Tom, I'd have no problem with an atheist...at least not just because of his atheism. I can't promise I'd like his politics. And then we could say, "The first openly atheist president." Sweet.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: And I think it's somewhat disingenuous to be indignant about some other Christian congregations talking about why they think Mormons are wrong when all Mormon congregations teach that everyone else is wrong.
I think it's like the difference between saying "You are the best son in all the world." and saying "Jimmy is a worse son than you are because he does X, and Billy is a bad son because of Y."
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys (being Mormons) should just all move to Massachusetts... Yeah, yeah, the gay marriage thing would make things a little awkward at first, but did I mention we have an openly Mormon governor?!?
quote:did I mention we have an openly Mormon governor?!?
Only for another year. Then we all get to have another one of them openly Mormon Presidential candidates.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to have to go back to the response to missionaries thing, m_p_h. Y'all have missionaries in pretty much any community you're active in, don't you? If missionaries are knocking on the the doors of a church's members and telling them about stuff they have never heard of before -- a modern day prophet, an entire different book of scripture -- and the member goes to their pastor and says "Here's what these people have been telling me. Are we missing something here? What does our church believe about this stuff?" How is the pastor supposed to react to that by just saying positive stuff about their own religion?
And if it happens just once, I definitely think it should just be addressed between that parishoner and the pastor. But if it happens a couple of times in the space of a couple of months, and it seems likely that there is a decent number of people in the congregation with these questions, then it would make sense to have a meeting to address the issues to larger numbers of people at once, as well as to offer the information to other people who may be curious but haven't asked.
Please remember that I'm just speculating here, and explaining why I think this sort of thing can be reasonable. I have never actually encountered such a seminar, like I said, I've never heard the LDS church or theology mentioned in church or any church related activity.
I was involved for the better part of a decade in a church that was very active in outreach. But we stressed that we were trying to reach the unchurched in the area, people who were not active members of another church, or were not Christians at all. Our pastor and council (of which I was a member) said many times that if the net result of our ministry was just to shuffle existing church members around between churches, even if we ended up growing our outreach would have failed. I understand why Mormons don't think that way. But in light of that, I also understand why other churches could feel threatened by Mormons where they wouldn't by a different denomination in roughly the same situation.
I'm sure it looks like I'm downplaying the actual, historical prejudices against Mormons that have happened and that some of you have experienced. I'm not trying to do that. When those things happen, I think it's wrong, and very un-Christian.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My point was that teaching what you believe is teaching how specific other churches (all of them) are wrong. No, you're not inviting someone special in to do it, and you're not saying the other churches are evil. But I still don't think you can say it's "quite different" from what members of other churches have been describing. And I think it's somewhat disingenuous to be indignant about some other Christian congregations talking about why they think Mormons are wrong when all Mormon congregations teach that everyone else is wrong.
And I know, obviously, that everyone thinks that they are right. I certainly do. But I think the vast majority of Christian denominations are rather inclusive about what "types" of Christians they believe have full benefits in the afterlife. It's a small but vocal minority that do not. Including Mormons.
From my (mormon) perspective: There are a number of issues that "Mormonism" has with the doctrines of other Christian denominations. I don't mind having an honest discussion of beliefs:
quote: Me:"We believe A, B and C while other churches believe X, Y and Z"
Friend: "We believe X, Y and Z. I don't understand how you can believe A, B, and C."
Friendly discussion ensues.
Unfortunately, those actively opposed to Mormonism, tend to distort the actual viewpoints of Mormonism to make it appear salacious or rediculous.
quote: Friend (opposed to Mormonism): "Mormons are wrong because they believe D, E and F "
Me: "Actually, we don't believe D, E. We believe A, B & C. And although we do believe F, when you say it like F it sounds really goofy. "
Friend: "No you don't. You believe D, E and F. Back in 1856, a Mormon apostle said G and H, so we know that he meant D and E"
(Hopefully this makes a little sense, I didn't really want to get off track with an argument about the actual points of doctrine)
Posts: 258 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: posted December 14, 2005 07:57 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was reading a post on another message board where the question of "could you vote for a Mormon for president" was asked.
One reply that stood out to me from a very conservative Republican was that he couldn't vote for a Mormon due to the following:
America is a Christian country America has God's blessing because we are a Christian country If America elected a "non-christian" as President, it would mark then end of this being a Christian country America would then lose God's favor. QED = Christians can't vote for a Mormon
I would vote for Russ Feingold in a minute. And probably vote for Harry Reid.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My aunts (Texan, Baptist) are convinced that I belong to a cult because of sessions at their church. They love me and I love them, so we just don't talk about religion in any specifics beyond a general thankfulness to God for each other.
But I'm not impressed with my aunt's church. I do NOT belong to a cult.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: "Here's what these people have been telling me. Are we missing something here? What does our church believe about this stuff?" How is the pastor supposed to react to that by just saying positive stuff about their own religion?
I understand why those questions need to be answered. I do believe it can be done. I still think there is a difference between answering questions as they are asked (which we do frequently in Sunday School as well as in less-formal settings like discussions), and setting up a meeting to specifically discuss what's wrong with another religion.
In my experience with a similar situation in the LDS church, the situation would go: "This is what I was taught by my {insert denomination} friend; what do we believe?" "We believe {insert doctrine}." If there was a specific doctrine that large numbers of people had heard conflicting things about from friends of another religion, and the leadership felt the need to address that doctrine in a public setting for everyone, my experience has been that they would do it by clearly explaining what we believe, as opposed to emphasizing what the false doctrine is and which specific religion it came from. For example, I've heard many sermons on how faith requires works, but I've never seen a meeting where people are taught, "This is what {insert denomination} believe about faith vs. works, and this is why they're wrong."
(I should say rarely. Since our sermons are given by lay members of the Church instead of paid ministers, the rules are not always strictly followed, unfortunately. Some people do mention other churches in their talks. Most do not. The general leadership never does. And no meeting would be set up with the express purpose of explaining what's wrong with another religion.)
I really believe you can teach people their religion without having to teach negatives about other religions. (I believe that because I have to do it on a weekly basis, as I teach the children at Church, and I am very careful to teach what WE believe without belittling or denigrating what other churches teach, especially by name.)
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, the LDS Church explicitly teaches that ALL other churches (and other religions) are incorrect.
But really, that's why different churches/denominations exist. Each one exists because its founders believed that ALL other churches were wrong on at least one important (in their mind) doctrine. If they didn't think everyone else was wrong, they would be a part of the church that they agreed with.
In other words, the very existence of a church/denomination implies a claim of its own correctness AND everyone else's incorrectness. Thus, the LDS Church is far from unique in this respect.
These days (and, to a lesser extent, throughout history), a lot of churchgoing people don't seem to care much about specifics of doctrine. As a result, it doesn't matter much to them which church/denomination they attend, within certain limits. They choose a church according to its proximity to home, the "atmosphere" of its worship services, the personality of its clergy, etc. For such a person, doctrine only matters if it is dramatically different. But this trait of some church members does not change the fact that doctrinal differences, however small, do exist, and are important for the reasons discussed above.
I guess my ultimate point is that every church (though perhaps not some of its members) believes, by definition, that it is right and everyone else is at least a little wrong. The LDS church is no exception, but neither can it be singled out as unique in its position. This is why there is a BIG difference between teaching that everyone else is wrong, and teaching that a particular church is wrong, and giving the specific reasons. (Not to mention the fact that, if the latter is done, it is almost certain to misrepresent the target church and its doctrine.)
Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haven't much time to post here, but having spent two years as an LDS missionary in the Deep South I can say that the "propaganda machine" talked about earlier in the thread is quite real. I personally worked in a town where two missionaries had been murdered in the 1930s, and older members in the rural areas would talk about how missionaries being killed or beaten was not at all uncommon in the pre-WWII era. For that matter, missionaries sent to the South around the turn of the century were treated more or less as going to war, and were well aware they may well come back to a six-foot-deep hole rather than a joyful homecoming. I had my own life threatened on religious grounds on more than one occassion, and was called either bound for Hell or one of its servants at least once a day.
Don't get me wrong. Many if not most of the people I met were kind, hospitable, and willing to talk about religion in a civil fashion if they were willing to talk at all. But there was more than enough hate to make Card's nightmare scenario in "Folk of the Fringe" frighteningly plausible. Of course, the Ku Klux Klan also tended to be very strong in these areas, and if the rule of law were to break down enough to make a "Folk of the Fringe" situation possible, there would be a great many lynchings at the same time.
I personally collected enough anti-Mormon literature to fill four filing folders, and I threw the vast majority of it away. We're not talking "Mormons are misguided" or "We disagree with Mormons" stuff. We're talking "Mormons are a Satanic cancer that must be stamped out" and "Mormons are servants of the Devil himself who want to steal your soul" and "Mormons are an evil cult with plans for world domination." While some if not most of the pamphlets and books were so ridiculous as to be self-parodying, they were in deadly earnest.
Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I challenge each and every person who doesn't believe there is a general bias against Mormons to say they are Mormon or plan to become Mormon for a week to friends, family members, and especially Religious leaders. I promise you it won't be pleasant.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My cousin converted when she got engaged to a nice Mormon boy. Other than her mom and grandma being upset that they couldn't be at her wedding, I don't recall any unpleasantness.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just for the record, there is a difference between a blanket statement of doctrine that covers no specific religions with no exact reasons, and very specific statements about a very specific religion that casts it in the most half-truth bad light as possible.
As an example, Someone might say that the only real football team is team B and all the rest don't have the same abilities. Discussion about other team ends there. Then they go off and explain all the reasons team B is so great. Another person says that team A, C, and D is horrible and then give very specific reasons why such teams are not good without any reasons they might be good or even using all the facts. In fact, anyone who is part of team A,C, and D is out to destroy football and any other team sports that exists.
The above isn't extreme examples. They represent the norm.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you all have a greatly inflated opinion of your own importance. In many areas of the country, the East Coast, for example, most people really don't know or care much about Mormons. You are much smaller potatoes than many people here seem to realize. The worst you get is some vauge ideas about polygamy and that you're scientology for Christians. Yeah, I get that the Southern Baptists hate you, but, they hate just about everybody.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I issue the challenge to you MrSquicky, even on the East Coast. I'd actually like to hear the results. Maybe it will be better than I hope, but from personal experience and from experience of people I know its not as simple as you seem to imply.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So your challenge to each and every person only applies to the ones that will get the result you expect?
I've been told by an LDS member on Hatrack that all (and I asked for clarification, the poster did intentionally say all) protestant and catholic clergy are malicious liars and/or deluded, and most are both. Fortunately, most LDS Hatrackers are a little more polite than that, but believe me "personal experience" goes both ways.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, are you double dog daring me, Occ? Almost no one I know has a general bias against mormons, any more than against any of the other small "wierd" Christian sects, because almost no one I know has ever thought about mormons. We honestly don't care. It's not in our consciousness.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you may have missed that dkw already related a story of LDS conversion that would fulfill your challenge, which you then dismissed as being an exception. I think that may be what she is referencing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Non-LDS aren't allowed to see LDS ceremonies, including weddings
That is. . . erm, what dkw said.
Many Mormons get married in special ceremonies in Mormon temples. These ceremonies are sacred-- only members in good standing are allowed to attend.
Other Mormon ceremonies, such as baby blessings (namings, if you will), baptisms, sacrament (ie, communion), are open to the general public.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional: I live on the East Coast. Both my brothers' wives are converts. They did not receive any death threats. No one, to my knowledge, disowned them. Their friends remain their friends. They are both (all?) still on good terms with their families.
You're hysterical, and I don't mean 'hysterical' like Carrot-top being grilled slowly over a low fire. Well. . . maybe I do. . .
Really, they are. Temples are fairly rare, by the way-- there are something like 3000 chapels (day-to-day service buildings) in all the world, and only ~200 temples. That's ~200 temples to serve 11+ million members.
quote: I think you may want to look at the timestamps involved there Scott.
Uh. . .why?
EDIT: Oh, I get it. My bad-- let me say what I intended. . .
quote: Non-LDS aren't allowed to see LDS ceremonies, including weddings
posted
Generally, if you're going to point out that someone is repeating what someone else said, it makes sense to check if the posts weren't made within seconds of each other.
And huh, that's something I didn't know. I figured they were all "you no come in here" places. You live and learn.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice. So now you're saying that I'm welcome in your buildings, as long as I stay in these so-called "pariah complexes." Yeah, you lot are real welcoming. . . . . . . . . . . Hey, the only reason I even knew my kind were verboten in your holiest of holies was through my participation on Hatrack. I realize that Occ is going to take that as evidence that I don't go to bed at night without my 10 minutes hate while staring at a picture of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, but there's not much I can do about that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel like we've got people here arguing "everybody hates Mormons" vs. "nobody cares about Mormons, quit whining."
My impression is that most people "honestly don't care" about Mormons because they know little about us, with perhaps the slight bemused smile: "You're a Mormon? Really? Hmm," when they meet one.
Let's admit that many churches teach that Mormons are not Christians, with no feeling of animosity, just with the intent to inform their parishioners that we don't believe the same things about Christ as they do (so we need to be saved). Fair enough. That is not an attack.
There ARE, though, individuals and churches out there that actively teach that Mormons are evil, a cult, out to take over the world. They won't let their kids play at our houses, they show anti-Mormon propaganda movies at their Youth Church nights, cut off long-time friendships as a result of those friends joining the Church, get the Donny and Marie show pulled off the air because "those Osmonds are Mormons", visit Mormon churches to speak in our Sunday services about how we're wrong and need to leave the Church to find Jesus and be saved. We're not imagining it. I've seen all those things in my own neighborhood.
Some of us are blowing it way out of proportion to imply that everyone feels that way, or even cares. People aren't tarred and feathered anymore. But you never know whether the person you've met is a "don't care" person or a "Mormons! AAAHHH!! " person, so it does make life a little suspenseful. No wonder some of us have a complex.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nice. So now you're saying that I'm welcome in your buildings, as long as I stay in these so-called "pariah complexes." Yeah, you lot are real welcoming.
Bring a baby. We'll make you feel right at home.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jenna, To clarify, I'm not saying "Nobody cares about Mormons. Quit whining." What I was saying is that there are many places in the country where people don't give a thought at all to Mormons. It's common in a separatist culture that has undergone oppression to see your culture as the center of the world, but it's almost never true. The LDS Church is a relatively minor one and most people can get by perfectly well without giving it a thought, unless they live in Utah or belong to one of the more beligerent protestant sects.
The people who are really not happy with you are generally either ex-members or the scary Christians who have a problem with most everybody. This isn't something to be brushed off, but neither it cause to view your religion as a subject of near universal opposition.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This topic has drifted a bit, but the New York Times reported today that Mitt has announced for certain that he won't seek another term as MA governor. The Times interprets this to mean that he has designs on the presidency. I'd link to the story, but I have a paper copy of the times, and their website requires a password to access stories.
Posts: 349 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. That's what I meant, MrSquicky. We need to get over the "everybody hates me" complex, hint, hint (to anyone who might need a hint). Everybody doesn't hate us.
But I didn't want to give the false impression that the horror stories are not true or no big deal. I guess growing up in the Bible Belt put me in the middle of the "scary protestants" zone. I think I'm in the same location where Yank served his mission.
Paraphrasing will get me every time. Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Mormons tend to have a pretty big cultural persecution complex. This is partially justified, for reasons already explained. However, in a lot of cases of it is overly paranoid and not based in facts. Normally, when faced with someone who whines about the great persecution our people have to bear I just and think "well aren't you just a perfect Christian martyr."
The only time I speak out is when some LDS try to indicate that this must be the Lord's church because there are so many people opposed to it and thus it's a sign that the Devil's working so hard to hinder its growth. That argument makes me want to scream. Hello, remember that whole Holocaust thing? Antisemitism in the world is waaay more rampant than Anti-Mormonism ever was or probably will be. Surely you can surmise if the amount of persecution were directly proportional with how true the faith is, then Judaism would have Mormonism beat in the arena of Truth.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me, the whole Bible Belt, 'you're not Christian, you're going to hell', 'You're all a bunch of brain-washed sinners' thing is much more of a burr in my saddle than anything else. Whenever I attend conference and see the vitriol and hate of those people who would really wish to do me and my family harm it just gets to me.
Then I see people like dkw and Bob and host of other people who have true Christlike love for their neighbors and I settle down quickly.
Let's face it. Not everyone is going to like us. It's cool. If anything, it means to me there's more work I can be doing to understand the frustrations of others who might not like my religion. That's a good thing to work on.
Posts: 1800 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my mother's family's defense, while they want nothing to do with the church, they did not object at all when my mother joined, and was very happy for her that she found something that made her happy.
We belong to a cult, but apparently not a dangerous one.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mitt Romney, if he runs for president, won't die on the issue of religion; he'll die on the fact that his party has bungled the goodwill of the world and the country by flailing about in Iraq. Looking ahead to 2008, I don't see how the GOP is going to recover from their wartime floundering.
3 years is a long time. Tons of things can happen in 3 years. The "goodwill of the world" has never meant a great deal in the US; if it had, we would have never went with a revolution And if it had, Reagan most assuredly would not have been elected twice in landslides.
In the end, I think the race in 2008 will come down to lots of issues, not just Iraq, as always. And I think (R)s have a better chance then people give them credit for. I think if Hillary ends up the (D) nominee - which maybe in the coming, as she's got more money in her warchest and broader support amongst the base then others, then it's open season. I think the far left doesn't care for her because of her new, moderate stance, but she'll be a tough sell in the south.
Mark Warner (D-VA, outgoing governor) is going to run, but I don't know if he can put together the funds to put up a full primary race. We'll have to see.
But lots of things between now and 2008 can happen. Iraqi government, based on two elections by then, could begin to solidify, which would be a vindication. Or, you could get a capture of Osama. Or, you could get a continually militaristic Iran led by a crazy PM doing idiotic things to Israel. Or Iraq could fall apart, hurting candidates, etc.
No one knows. It's too far away to make any sort of slam dunk type predictions Posts: 202 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone asked what I was taught at informative sessions held at my church.
Mainly, it was an overview of where Mormon doctrine differed from ours in regard to things that you would readily admit, I'm sure, that we disagree on - your view that view of the nature of God, Christ, and the trinity is not the same as ours.
Then we discussed how to respond to Mormon missionaries that called upon our home. And the instruction given wasn't "Tell them they're going to hell and slam the door in their face." Nor was it "Give them a Jack Chick tract." Rather it was invite them in, treat them with the kindness and love you would show to any of your friends and neighbors and ask them if they will come back so that you can discuss your faith with them and share with them why you believe your faith is correct and theirs is not. If they are not willing to discuss such with you, then wish them well and let them know they can always contact you or a member of your church at any time to discuss matters of doctrine and belief.
Again, I am repeatedly frustrated when running up against the Mormon persecution complex. You send our missionaries to tell everyone that they are wrong and should convert to your church but you have a problem with us doing the exact same thing.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You send our missionaries to tell everyone that they are wrong and should convert to your church but you have a problem with us doing the exact same thing."
Problem it its NOT the exact same thing. Take out the "tell everyone they are wrong" and it would be much more accurate. We say why we are RIGHT and leave the "wrong" out of it. Its the difference between implication and direct information. We don't talk about any other religion in any way; period. We don't even talk about how to deal with other religious people's trying to convert us. Officially, the LDS Church rarely even talks about the differences between what we and others believe. We certainly don't hold conferences, firesides, or informational discussions about other religions.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He has announced he is not running for office again. He feels he has done everything he set out to do.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I am of a very inclusive branch of Christianity. To me, there's not much difference between occasionally (once a year? Once every couple of years? How often do you think it happens, in the churches that do it?) bringing someone in to agressively address the issue and quietly, passively, taking it as a given all the time as part of your doctrine that everyone else is wrong. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
" person, so it does make life a little suspenseful. No wonder some of us have a complex.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
and think "well aren't you just a perfect Christian martyr."
