More DVD Fun!

[cksalmon]

(2) Origin of the Temple ceremony was false (I can probably find that)

Okay, I found it. The DVD states that the Masonic rituals were integral to the LDS Temple ceremony. I don't wish to invoke mod intervention by discussing the Temple, so we might have to let this one go.

If possible to do without violating any board rules, perhaps you could explain very generally the LDS position on the origin of the Temple ceremony. Feel free to skip it, if necessary.

Best.

CKS

[jwhitlock]

They did it in the 1800's. Robbing, beating, raping, murdering...

And much of that was inflamed by the preaching against the Mormons that occured then.

[mnn727]

Do you consider the DVD to be hate speech?

Yes 100% IT IS DEFINATLEY HATE SPEECH. Anytime anyone lies on purpose about another people, or group of people it is out of hatred.

[Kenngo1969]

As a threshold issue, one has to wonder, since the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), and not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is responsible for the statement to which McKeever is responding, why McKeever addresses his rebuttal to the Church, as if Church leaders said, â??Jump!â? and ADL powers-that-be merely asked â??How high?â?

â?¢ How many people involved in the distribution did you actually speak to who exhibited hatred as their reason for participating?

Right. If they really hate the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members, they should have no problem coming clean with a plain statement to that effect. (Except that such a frontal assault would undermine the subterfuge that has surrounded this DVD since well before its mass distribution to members of the Church of Jesus Christ).

â?¢ What phrase or statement in the DVD resembled anything close to "hate speech"?

Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group [and, we might add, a religious group] or a member of such a group.

The DVD is nothing but 90 minutes of disparagement of the Church of Jesus Christ, and its leaders, doctrines, and practices. What part of the foregoing definition does McKeever not understand?

â?¢ 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.

As illustrated by the foregoing definition of hate speech, the ADL application of this term to the DVD, rather than being unfounded, is, instead, rather fitting. By contrast, McKeeverâ??s accusing the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders and members of cowardice is ridiculous. Furthermore, whether McKeever thinks offense taken by members of the Church of Jesus Christ is warranted, as a Christian, surely heâ??s not suggesting that members who take such offense shouldnâ??t forgive those they believe to be responsible for that offense â?¦ is he? How would such forgiveness be hypocritical? (After all, forgiveness would be the Christian thing to do under such circumstances, wouldnâ??t it? His suggestion to the contrary certainly casts the accusation that Mormons arenâ??t Christian in a different light, doesnâ??t it?)

As for McKeeverâ??s invocation of Matthew 7:1, for an alleged â??false prophet,â? Joseph Smithâ??s rendition of this verse is revealing indeed: Instead of a blanket injunction to avoid judgment altogether, Josephâ??s version of this scripture has the Savior condemning unrighteous judgment. Surely McKeever understands that it is inevitable and necessary for Christians (both Mormon and not) to pass righteous judgment. For example, we Christians (both Mormon and not), while we do strive to love all of their fellowbeings as Christ would love them, should and do pass righteous judgment by declining to participate in or to condone behavior of which we believe He would not approve (to â??love the sinner while hating the sin,â? as the saying goes).

â?¢ 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?

By the foregoing assertion, McKeever makes himself the sole arbiter of what is an â??officialâ? source of doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. After all, heaven forbid that heâ??or anyone else associated with the DVDâ??allow the Church of Jesus Christ, through its leaders, to define its own doctrine. (Doing so would have obviated the producersâ?? modus operandi and much (if not all) of the DVDâ??s very raison dâ??etre. Itâ??s much more fun to attack straw men. (Conveniently, he does not even bother to tell us what touchstone he uses to determine what constitutes â??officialâ? doctrine. He just engages in ipse dixit by the bare assertion that he did, indeed, use â??officialâ? sources and leaves it at that.

Furthermore, however much the Churchâ??s apparent decision to avoid responding to the DVD directly may disappoint McKeever, engaging in such a direct response would likely do nothing but provide McKeever and those of his ilk with a fresh supply of ammunition with which to attack it. Indeed, as evidenced by his accusation of cowardice on the part of the Church and its leaders, McKeever puts the Church in a no-win situation: responding directly to the DVD would only give the Churchâ??s critics more ammunition, while the lack of such a response gives them an excuse to accuse its leaders of cowardice.

â?¢ 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?

McKeever reveals a remarkably thin skin in making this accusation. If one accepts the logic McKeever uses here, the question must be asked, â??Then why does more than one Christian denomination exist in the first place?â? At the risk of oversimplifying, Sect B was started because its proponents felt that Sect A was incorrect in some particular, Sect C was started because its proponents felt that Sects A and B were wrong on (a) particular point(s), and so on. However much McKeever might want to gloss over such historical differences in favor of proclaiming unanimity among Christians of the various stripes (except for Mormons, of course), such a glib dismissal is inconsistent with the historical record. Why McKeever isnâ??t equally offended that the Baptists, the Methodists, the Lutherans, and so on each thought the other so wrong that yet another sect had to be created to correct such wrongs is a mystery indeed.

Furthermore, can McKeever point to an article in his own faith with sentiments similar to the Eleventh Article of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ? If McKeever really â??claim[ed] the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of [his] own conscience, and allow[ed] all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may,â? one would have to wonder why the DVD exists in the first place. Can McKeever point to a scripture in his own canon similar to Doctrine and Covenants 58:27, which states that â??inasmuch as men do good [of whatever religious persuasion, or even of no religious persuasion at all] they shall in nowise lose their rewardâ?? Has one of the leaders of McKeeverâ??s denomination invited adherents to other faiths to bring the good theyâ??ve found in their own faith with them, and let that denomination add to it, as President Gordon B. Hinckley has? (Again, if so, one really has to wonder at the DVDâ??s mere existence.)

â?¢ 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?

This accusation was adequately addressed in connection with my response to McKeeverâ??s previous bullet point, above.

â?¢ 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?

It is curious that McKeever uses the passive voice (â??it was statedâ?) rather than crediting and quoting the specific speaker responsible for the statement. Such a non-attributed quotation makes me wonder what McKeeverâ??s source for this quotation is. So McKeever disagrees with the assessment that non-LDS Christians are in error. But if that premise were true, wouldnâ??t McKeever (and â??millions of [other] Christiansâ?) want to know it? Here again, McKeever proves remarkably thin-skinned. Why McKeever is so offended at the stated position of the Church of Jesus Christ vis-

[cksalmon]

Yes 100% IT IS DEFINATLEY HATE SPEECH. Anytime anyone lies on purpose about another people, or group of people it is out of hatred.

What are the lies, though? I keep seeing similar statements being made here: the DVD lies. Where, though?

Lognormal has identified one possible "lie": that the Masonic rituals were integral to the Temple ceremonies. If they indeed were not, I think this might be chalked up to misunderstanding. Again, I don't know if it's possible to discuss this issue in a kosher manner on this board, but you might have a go at it if you think it is possible.

Other than that? What are the lies promulgated by the DVD?

Best.

CKS

[aaronshaf]

Was Brigham Young's rhetoric toward the "Jews" and "Christians" "hate speech"?

[Log]

Okay, I found it. The DVD states that the Masonic rituals were integral to the LDS Temple ceremony. I don't wish to invoke mod intervention by discussing the Temple, so we might have to let this one go.

If possible to do without violating any board rules, perhaps you could explain very generally the LDS position on the origin of the Temple ceremony. Feel free to skip it, if necessary.

Best.

CKS

CKS - I don't have an internet-ready reference on-hand.

[Dale]

While this may be approaching apples and oranges, some might say that placing a chicken with it's head cut off and a cross stuck in it on a christians lawn might be hate, and is a perfectly peaceful action.

Frankly, at it's core, I don't see why people don't get that bearing false witness of others and promoting it publicly can't be considered "hate speech"? And, really, ignorance isn't bliss. The clansman is certainly ignorant, but that doesn't excuse his corrupt beliefs of others. Does it?

I don't object to ADL calling hate speech as they see it. I think it's going far to far comparing the DVD distribution to burning crosses. I prefer to discuss the issues of the film I disagree with rather than comparing Tri-Grace ministries, and Concerned Christians, MRM, ect to the KKK.

Where does the LDS response say the film did not use official sources? Bill say's that in his response, but I must have missed that in the LDS statement. I can't find it.

[Pahoran]

Was Brigham Young's rhetoric toward the "Jews" and "Christians" "hate speech"?

Which "rhetoric" was that? You mean his statement that "we are Christians professedly, according to our religion?"

For the record, the claim that the Church has ever claimed to be anything other than Christian is one of the more blatant anti-Mormon lies to be found on your hate site.

Regards,

Pahoran

[jwhitlock]

Do you agree that the video contained hate speech? Could you point to an example? I realize that you disagree with the motivation of the producers/distributors, but where is the hate speech? If you mean merely that LDS were misrepresented, perhaps you could point out an example of such? They may well have been, but I'm curious as to your confidence that the DVD contains hate speech. Rather than merely bandy about the accusation, I'm curious to see an example.

CK, I'm curious as to whether you consider it to be only hate speech if it is blatantly so expressed. Can not hate speech be couched in more subtle terms, or cloaked in phrases that the writer knows will raise certain negative emotions about his subject (in this case, the Church), but for which he can later deny hateful intent?

I am reminded of cases where people engage in "let's you and him fight" games, by instigating emotional reactions in other people, and then sitting back and watching those emotions take their natural course against someone else.

Anti-Mormon content is designed, whether blatantly hateful, or more subtly couched, to invoke a negative emotional response against Mormons and the Church. It is apparent that this DVD did so, both in terms of members of the Church feeling they were attacked, and in fueling antagonistic feeling in at least some non-members against the Church. Does this not fall under the category of hate speech?

[Pahoran]

As near as I can tell, JDErickson was referring to ADL's useful cataloging of anti-Semitic speech; it was exemplary not comparative. You, however, have gone ahead and compared, implicitly, the DVD producers to Nazis. If that's not an instance of violating Godwin's law, I don't know what is.

Nice try, but I'm afraid your description of the discussion is quite contrary to fact.

So "anti-Mormon's" are now lynching Mormons and sending them to concentration camps where they are starved and then gassed to death?

And:

Where did I say they were? There are lots of different kinds of hate. The worst kind (Nazi's and KKK) were compared to the DVD. That is wrong.

I must say, CK, that you are doing a remarkably adroit job at defending the DVD without actually associating yourself with it. It's quite a tightrope act, but you seem to be pulling it off. Well done.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Freedom]

What are the lies, though?

The deception is in the interpretation. They quote the bible and claim that their interpretation is the only one. In fact, they know full well that their interpretation is shared by only a few, less than perhaps 5% of Christians. They quote Joseph Smith and they contrast this with select verses from the bible to create the appearance of contradiction, but they fail to address the biblical passages that we use to support these doctrines. They intentionally ignore them to create the appearance that they are right. They consistently ignore the responses to these very same issues. If I were to accuse you of murder and you were to provide an alibi and I were to continue to accuse you of murder as if your defense was never made, I become a liar.

[jwhitlock]

The words of Mormon Eugene Woodbury:

Quoted by John Dehlin. http://www.johndehlin.com/blog/?p=166

The Church's stand is far different from those expressed by groups that are anti-Mormon. As has been demonstrated in other threads, the Church's intent is to promote its doctrine - doctrines which may be in opposition to those of other churches. The intent of anti-Mormons is primarily to denigrate the Church, which is not the same method the Church uses in its proselyting work. To justify anti-Mormon work as a response to "attacks" by the Church is simply an invalid comparison.

Frankly, the justification behind attacks on the LDS Church mirror the justifications of those who attacked Jesus Christ and the "new" religion He preached. The justification continued with the persecution of His followers after He was crucified. And it is the same justification for persecution of His restored Church in the latter days.

I don't expect anyone to swallow what we preach with a smile. And frankly, I don't believe that most informed Latter-day Saints have the same perspective of other Christians as anti-Mormons have of us.

[Pahoran]

The words of Mormon Eugene Woodbury:

Quoted by John Dehlin. http://www.johndehlin.com/blog/?p=166

Very clever of you to quote one fringe Mormon quoting another fringe Mormon, and then citing the second's Mormonness as if it clinches the issue; but it doesn't.

The fallacy of appeal to authority is not less of a fallacy when the "authority" is a nobody.

It has never been denied that the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ necessarily exclude all competing truth claims, including those you believe but are too insecure to proclaim. But what Woodbury and Dehlin and you are too thick to grasp is that that is not the issue. It's not the proclaiming of alternative truth claims that makes an anti-Mormon video, it is the fact that you are not proclaiming your truth claims at all. Rather, you are merely attacking ours. I take this as an admission that you know that yours don't stack up.

In which, you are right.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mighty Curelom]

The masonic origin of LDS temple rituals is indisputable. Check out FAIR's response--they don't even deny it. Instead, they focus in why the masonic origin of LDS temple rituals doesn't negatively impact the truth of Mormonism.

If you're interested CK, I've come across a website with a side by side comparison. It contains short quotes from the temple ceremony; no pictures. I realize the sensitivity LDS have about the temple ceremony, so rather than provide a hyperlink, I'll just tell you how to find it. [deleted]

Don't do that again. ~ Mods

[cksalmon]

Nice try, but I'm afraid your description of the discussion is quite contrary to fact.

Do tell.

I must say, CK, that you are doing a remarkably adroit job at defending the DVD without actually associating yourself with it. It's quite a tightrope act, but you seem to be pulling it off. Well done.

I have absolutely no interest in impressing you, P. I'm defending the idea that DVDs espousing radically contrary views anent LDS truth claims can be produced and not be legitimately counted as hate speech.

CKS

[cksalmon]

CK, I'm curious as to whether you consider it to be only hate speech if it is blatantly so expressed. Can not hate speech be couched in more subtle terms, or cloaked in phrases that the writer knows will raise certain negative emotions about his subject (in this case, the Church), but for which he can later deny hateful intent?

I am reminded of cases where people engage in "let's you and him fight" games, by instigating emotional reactions in other people, and then sitting back and watching those emotions take their natural course against someone else.

Anti-Mormon content is designed, whether blatantly hateful, or more subtly couched, to invoke a negative emotional response against Mormons and the Church. It is apparent that this DVD did so, both in terms of members of the Church feeling they were attacked, and in fueling antagonistic feeling in at least some non-members against the Church. Does this not fall under the category of hate speech?

Hi J--

I think this is a very perceptive and important question. I'm not sure exactly how to respond. Perhaps, I can couch my response in very general terms, avoiding, for the sake of objectivity, the DVD itself.

CK, I'm curious as to whether you consider it to be only hate speech if it is blatantly so expressed.

No, like you, I don't think that would be a legitimate distinction. Hate speech can certainly be subtle and indirect. Blatantism, if I may coin the term, is not exclusively-determinative of hate speech.

Can not hate speech be couched in more subtle terms, or cloaked in phrases that the writer knows will raise certain negative emotions about his subject (in this case, the Church),

Yes. I think so.

but for which he can later deny hateful intent?

Well, at this point, I'd suggest that one must consider motivation. Let's bracket the DVD for a moment. Generally speaking, was the hypothetical person's intent to express hatred that could be denied, based on its subtlety at some later point? If so, then yes, I think I would consider it hate speech.

But what if the hypothetical person's utterances bore no intended malice or hatred, no matter how they are perceived by the targeted group? Would that be hate speech? I don't think that it would be.

Anti-Mormon content is designed, whether blatantly hateful, or more subtly couched, to invoke a negative emotional response against Mormons and the Church.

This may be true, frankly, at some level. I'm not sure that a negative emotional response is the primary goal, however. If one believes that one is promulgating truth as opposed to falsehood, then it follows, I think, that one would wish, at some level, to promote a negative emotional response to a perceived falsehood.

I don't think that such would be indicative of hate speech or defamation. Perhaps, it is indicative of a desire to promote what one considers truth vis-a-vis what one considers falsehood...?

Best.

CKS

[Tsuzuki]

â??Similarly, to claim that our missionaries arenâ??t 'tearing down' other religions may be true in terms of process, but certainly not end result. The convert has to reject his current beliefs and his current loyalties and his current sacraments, no dual citizenship allowed. Why pretend thereâ??s anything nice about what weâ??re up to (Matthew 10:34)?

I call BS.

The words of Mormon Eugene Woodbury:

Who is this guy, anyway?

[jwhitlock]

Well, at this point, I'd suggest that one must consider motivation. Let's bracket the DVD for a moment. Generally speaking, was the hypothetical person's intent to express hatred that could be denied, based on its subtlety at some later point? If so, then yes, I think I would consider it hate speech.

But what if the hypothetical person's utterances bore no intended malice or hatred, no matter how they are perceived by the targeted group? Would that be hate speech? I don't think that it would be.

This may be true, frankly, at some level. I'm not sure that a negative emotional response is the primary goal, however. If one believes that one is promulgating truth as opposed to falsehood, then it follows, I think, that one would wish, at some level, to promote a negative emotional response to a perceived falsehood.

I don't think that such would be indicative of hate speech or defamation. Perhaps, it is indicative of a desire to promote what one considers truth vis-a-vis what one considers falsehood...?

Thanks for your comments on this, CK.

The determination of intent is very important.

It does not appear that the simple promulgation of what one considers truth exempts that person from communicating it in a hateful manner. I know that from personal experience. There are many people who believe strongly that what they are saying negatively about another group is true, and who are very hateful about the way they say it.

On the other hand, active deception by promoting something known or suspected to be false can also be viewed as hate speech, since it serves no positive purpose other than to tear something else down.

And both deception and belief in truth can be mixed together in the same communication.

What is the intent of those involved in the production of the DVD?

[kantgomo]

I have read Bill Mckeever for years, and never felt he loved Mormons. What's the proof he loves Mormons? Where is the love to be found on the MRM website? If somebody can prove he loves Mormons then I need to see the proof. I don't know him, but only see him writing Anti-Mormon things. Where are all his pro-love for Mormon writings?

Perhaps those ministries, and persons involved in the film need to not do such DVD giveaways in the future. If they loved Mormons then they would respect the feelings of LDS that they feel hated when such DVD's are left on , or in front of their doors. MRM no doubt took a public relations hit, so had to beat off the well deserved abuse they got.

I am awaiting to see if MRM, or another ministry responds to the FAIR response to the film. They have to be fuming at this point.

I met Bill a short while ago and strongly feel he does genuinely love Merpeople.

[Daniel Peterson]

I debated Bill McKeever on the radio a few years ago, and strongly feel that he's not very good.

Besides, being a professional critic of other peoples' religious beliefs is not an honorable way to make a living.

[kantgomo]

I debated Bill McKeever on the radio a few years ago, and strongly feel that he's not very good.

Besides, being a professional critic of other peoples' religious beliefs is not an honorable way to make a living.

Well, in the end if he was right [re: the Gospel] and strived to share the truth so as to lead others to Christ, then yes, I'm certain God will be pleased with him.

[Programmer]

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

Best.

CKS

So some anti-defimation leaque calls an untruthful DVD as 'hate speech', and you label their statement 'hate speech'?? What are you nuts!!???

Which makes me wonder Mr SKsalmon. Is there any truth in you? Can you understand truth when you see it? Or are so blinded that you couldn't understand this:

2 + 2 = 4 ???

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, in the end if he was right [re: the Gospel] and strived to share the truth so as to lead others to Christ, then yes, I'm certain God will be pleased with him.

And if he was wrong, perhaps God will have mercy on him.

[kantgomo]

And if he was wrong, perhaps God will have mercy on him.

My heartfelt desire is that we would all dwell in God's very presence for all eternity. My the Lord have mercy upon us all. Hey DCP, maybe our mansions in heaven will be next door to one another. We'll get together for donuts.