I appreciate that our anti-Mormon FReepers are now posting mostly current LDS articles to "discuss". It's definitely an improvement!
Well, the current stuff has at least been my angle. T.Don, we've had a few good in-depth discussions. So I trust your response to my query here:
Do you really think it's helpful to Christian-LDS dialog to pin a stereotypical "anti" label on someone? What if Christian FREEPERS went around calling LDS FREEPERS "protags" all the time? ("protags" for protagonists).
I mean, after all, before anybody even knew about the word "Mormon" -- Christians were labeled by Mormons as having 100% "corrupt" professing believers, 100% "abominable" creeds, that we were all wrong.
The late 19th-century Mormons then decided this assessment was revelatory, canonized, "Scriptural" stuff.
And ever since then, Mormon authors & missionaries & teachers have gone out of their way to label us all apostates.
Now that sounds rather protagonistic to me. Yet if I just went around calling LDS FREEPERS "protags" all the time -- it'd be not only impersonal but would get old real fast.
LDS have struck the first spiritual blow on Christians and have only raised the pot to world-wide status.
In light of this, why do you insist on using the "anti" term when you know that some Christians...
...are only responding to your beliefs -- and not (necessarily) you personally?
...--and-- that some have been provoked by being cast world-wide as "apostates?"