Jump to content

More DVD Fun!


jwhitlock

Recommended Posts

You can read the following quoted article here.

I guess that the Church's response that he links to in the first paragraph ("tacit approval") wasn't really a response at all (see the 5th bullet point).

Nice study in blaming the victims.

Also interesting to note that this was posted prominently on the blog of an anti-Mormon (who was highly offended that we would label him as such) who posted here not so long ago in response to a post about Sunday School classes and counter-cult activity (see here)...

April 4, 2007

The First Presidency

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

50 East North Temple

Salt Lake City, UT 84150-0002

Dear Sirs,

As a Christian living in the Salt Lake Valley, I wish to express my indignation at your church's tacit approval of the Anti-Defamation League's accuastion of hatred towards Christians who were involved in a recent DVD distribution. It is one thing to disagree with the content of the DVD, but it is quite another to accuse them of being motivated by hate. I will try to temper my outrage by asking the following questions:

  • How many people involved in the distribution did you actually speak to who exhibited hatred as their reason for participating?
  • What phrase or statement in the DVD resembled anything close to "hate speech"?
  • If there is no evidence that the participants were motivated by hatred, are you not guilty of bearing false witness when you make that accusation?
  • Isn't it also duplicitous of you to make such an unfounded accusation of hatred and then retreat to your 177th General Conference to talk about forgiveness and speaking "with the (peaceful) voice of angels"? Jesus talked about such hypocrisy in Matthew 7:1ff.
  • You insist that the DVD did not include official sources. It did. However, if official sources really concern you, why did you hide behind an unofficial rebuttal? Why should anybody consider FAIR's response authoritative since this organization claims it does not officially speak for the LDS Church? Why doesn't the LDS Church have the courage to offer its own response?
  • LDS.org states, "When Latter-day Saint missionaries visit homes or engage others in conversation, they studiously avoid criticism of other faiths. They do not attack and they do not condemn" Are you really unaware that your present missionary manual clearly states on page 36, "Investigators must be told that a universal apostasy occurred following the death of Jesus and His Apostles. If there had been no apostasy, there would have been no need of a Restoration. As a diamond on black velvet appears more brilliant, so the restoration stands in striking contrast to the dark background of the Great Apostasy. As guided by the Spirit, teach investigators about the Great Apostasy at a level of detail appropriate to their needs and circumstance" (Preach My Gospel, p.36). Do you really not see the hypocrisy in this statement?
  • Over the years I have listened politely to numerous missionaries tell me about Joseph Smith's alleged First Vision. Do you really think Christians such as I should not feel criticized when we are told that our churches are wrong, our creeds are an abomination, and that Christian "professors" are corrupt?
  • At your 177th General Conference, it was stated, "I know that heaven-sent revelations have replaced the gross errors of manmade doctrines concerning the Godhead." Is this not a criticism directed at millions of Christians?
  • If the LDS Church had its people place information on doors in neighborhoods and Christians made a concerted effort to remove this information (as Mormons have bragged they did), wouldn't that be called stealing? Why is it that the Mormons who did this do not see it as such?
  • If the Christian community responded to an evangelistic effort by the LDS Church with the loud, angry voices exhibited recently by Latter-day Saints, wouldn't your members accuse the Christians of persecuting them? Why should these actions not be considered persecution against Christians?

Please bear in mind that I am not saying that Mormons do not have the right to believe whatever they wish; in fact, I have often strongly supported their right to do so. I would only ask that you, as leaders of this church, be honest with the media and the general public when it comes to the subject of criticism and the charge of hatred.

With all of the talk of repentance at your last conference, I think you need to lead by example and offer an apology to the thousands of Christians you have offended with this false accusation.

Sincerely,

Bill McKeever

Director, Mormonism Research Ministry

Link to comment

That guy is a hoot. Do you think he really believe what he says?

Link to comment
I would think there would be a number of LDS who would like for the First Presidency to respond themselves rather than relying on non-official sources.

If the First Presidency had to respond in detail to all the anti stuff that came out, they'd never get anything else done. It wasn't as if the DVD presented anything new, either.

Link to comment

I agree with Bill, Charity. I think the endorsement of the hate speech bit is grossly misrepresentative.

Best.

CKS

Where did "tacit" become "endorse?"

tacit = understood without being openly expressed; implied: tacit approval.

endorse = approve, support, or sustain: to endorse a political candidate.

Link to comment

Where did "tacit" become "endorse?"

tacit = understood without being openly expressed; implied: tacit approval.

endorse = approve, support, or sustain: to endorse a political candidate.

Okay, Charity, the Church tacitly approves (rather than openly approves?) of the ADL statement concerning the DVD, so much so that they placed it on their official lds.org website. Do you consider the DVD to be hate speech?

Best.

CKS

Link to comment

Maybe someone who actually talked with the people who distributed the DVD could step up and give a few answers to Bills question.

BTW I think Bill is right on in asking the questions----------only answers from those who can answer, will make any points AFAIC

Link to comment

Feel the love <_<

Two churches meet in the night, one brings a gun, the other a knife.

Satan wins 2-0 :P score

Get thee behind me Anti DVD, let not your darkness enter my light.

Link to comment

Ok so lets say that the DVD is not "hate speech". It sure is not "love" either. If a man beats his wife and says he does so because he loves her, such a claim is a complete fraud. Likewise if someone misrepresents the LDS faith, does not present the LDS view regarding the issues, does not invite LDS leaders, scholars, ect to provide a balance to the claims, is this truely "love"?

I would rather have someone tell me that when they hit me that did so because they hate my guts rather than tell me they did so because they loved me. This DVD claims that its purpose is out of love for LDS people. So perhaps the makers of this DVD should offer an apology to LDS by the false claim that they did it out of love. SOrry, there is absolutely no love in this DVD.

Link to comment

Okay, Charity, the Church tacitly approves (rather than openly approves?) of the ADL statement concerning the DVD, so much so that they placed it on their official lds.org website. Do you consider the DVD to be hate speech?

Best.

CKS

Where is it on the site? I just checked the Newsroom and I didn't see it anywhere.... :P

Link to comment

Oh, I felt the "love" (really) when watching that DVD, I also felt the "darkness" and the "hate".

The old man whom the community has known forever as one of the most righteous and kind persons ever, will not be justified in HIM, when it turns out he is actually a long time child molester.

Anti-mormons, your "love" will not justify you in your bearing false witness. Christ has said so in Mark/Luke 9.

Link to comment

Hi Maggie--

I found it here.

ADLstatement.jpg

Best.

[Lach beat me to the punch.]

CKS

Thanks for posting a picture of the website, CKS! I see that links are posted to quite a few stories from different newspapers about the event, including the Salt Lake Tribune; in addition to the ADL statement.

This makes it appear to me more that the Church website is giving a representative sampling of stories regarding the incident. In this context, I see nothing particularly wrong with posting the ADL statement. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with posting it in isolation either.

I think Bill McKeever's elevator has ceased going all the way to the top. I mean, did you see him on that DVD?

What kind of letter did he write to the ADL?

--Consiglieri

Link to comment

I listened to a radio interview with the Phoenix head of the Anti-Defamation League. He compared the DVD to burning crosses on Blacks lawns and painting swastikas on Jews homes.

Does the LDS Church really want to affiliate themselves with a group that does this?

I would say it's an accurate assessment. Have you watched the DVD? So much evil, dressed up in sincerity and love.

Link to comment

You can read the following quoted article here.

I guess that the Church's response that he links to in the first paragraph ("tacit approval") wasn't really a response at all (see the 5th bullet point).

Nice study in blaming the victims.

Also interesting to note that this was posted prominently on the blog of an anti-Mormon (who was highly offended that we would label him as such) who posted here not so long ago in response to a post about Sunday School classes and counter-cult activity (see here)...

Funny how he doesn't have an "Open Letter" to the ADL. Now why is that?

-Smac

Link to comment
LDS.org states, "When Latter-day Saint missionaries visit homes or engage others in conversation, they studiously avoid criticism of other faiths. They do not attack and they do not condemn" Are you really unaware that your present missionary manual clearly states on page 36, "Investigators must be told that a universal apostasy occurred following the death of Jesus and His Apostles. If there had been no apostasy, there would have been no need of a Restoration. As a diamond on black velvet appears more brilliant, so the restoration stands in striking contrast to the dark background of the Great Apostasy. As guided by the Spirit, teach investigators about the Great Apostasy at a level of detail appropriate to their needs and circumstance" (Preach My Gospel, p.36). Do you really not see the hypocrisy in this statement?

Over the years I have listened politely to numerous missionaries tell me about Joseph Smith's alleged First Vision. Do you really think Christians such as I should not feel criticized when we are told that our churches are wrong, our creeds are an abomination, and that Christian "professors" are corrupt?

I started a thread on this accusation a while back but not many people participated. I would like to hear the church respond to this one point. Is it offensive that we insist the creeds are an "abomination?" I guess one of my biggest fears as a latter day saint is that we are anything like these people.

Link to comment
I agree with Bill, Charity.

Now there's a surprise....

I think the endorsement of the hate speech bit is grossly misrepresentative.

While I think the syrupy, insincere protestations of "lurve" that these haters mechanically intone are deliberately "misrepresentative."

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Thanks for posting a picture of the website, CKS! I see that links are posted to quite a few stories from different newspapers about the event, including the Salt Lake Tribune; in addition to the ADL statement.

This makes it appear to me more that the Church website is giving a representative sampling of stories regarding the incident. In this context, I see nothing particularly wrong with posting the ADL statement. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with posting it in isolation either.

I think Bill McKeever's elevator has ceased going all the way to the top. I mean, did you see him on that DVD?

What kind of letter did he write to the ADL?

--Consiglieri

I'm sure I must have seen Bill in the video, though his appearance doesn't stick out in my mind. Perhaps, I'll have to watch the video online again for the third time.

What did stick with me though was that Vince Neil apparently got a haircut, changed his name to John McCartney, and became a pastor. (No offense to John McCartney, whom I do not know...)

Best to you.

CKS

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...