Jo, can you show me where my OP misrepresents what Otterson said (and which I quoted)?
Sure, here is what he said:The bulk of European coverage, by contrast, remains cynical if not outright mocking, says Otterson. “Lots of Europeans, especially the British—and I can say this because I’m British—have smug, condescending attitudes toward Americans anyway. So do many French and Germans. Mix into that this idea of religion and the fact that many of them come from a completely secular background, and it’s really hard for them to understand the depths of American pluralism.”
No where does he specifically mention Mormonism as being victimized by European smugness. He is representing their overall general attitude about American pluralism due to their own secular background. At best Mormonism and ALL religious affiliations are INCLUDED in his choice of words; i.e., "American pluralism". IOW, the basic problem when dealing with Europeans is their condescending attitude (which is founded in their secularism) toward Americans; regardless of the subject matter. You put your own spin on the article in an attempt to present something negative to say because he is LDS. However, what you wanted the article to say, it just didn't.
This is just a transparent and sorry trick which anti-LDS use; or for that matter, a common trick of anyone who holds a grudge and agenda -driven purpose against a person, a concept, or an organization. Sad thing about using tactics like this.....it has a tendency to distort not only current issues; it will also distort history when future readers review what was happening in 2012. It will be just as difficult for them to wade through opinions, agendas, etc., to try to determine what actually took place, as it is for us today to determine the true historicity of any subject matter. When researchers are so employed, they will need to be aware of the attitude of Europeans towards Americans, in order to come to a more complete and educated view of what they will finally believe was actually taking place.