More DVD Fun!

[Bernard Gui]

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...?

I think Jews are well situated to determine their own definition of hate speech. I'm inclined

to go with their version. If they say the DVD is hate speech, who am I do disagree?

They have been there and done that. So have the Mormons.

So, lets exchange Jews for Mormons in the DVD.

A group of "loving Christians" waits until all the Jews in their neighborhoods are at synagogue on the

Sabbath. Then they steal through the streets surreptitiously hanging "loving" DVDs entitled "Jews and Jesus

Christ" on the Jews' doors, having been instructed not to engage the Jews in discussion, but simply and with "love" put the DVDs where the Jews cannot help but find them. The intent of the DVD is to show how Judaism is false and their version of Christianity is the Jews' only hope.

And then the Jews protest the distortions in the DVD and the method of distributing it and label it anti-Semitic.

And then the Jews are excoriated for objecting.

That is hate speech.

But when it is done to Mormons, it is "love" speech.

Bernard

[Tanyan]

Can't we all just get along ?.

[maklelan]

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

Main Entry: lie

Function: verb

Inflected Form(s): lied; ly

[Argos]

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- thank you for your sensitivity to the subject. There can be discussion of temple stuff within in some bounds; however, you may find that individual LDS may not be comfortable doing so on a message board, even if the some of the specifics have been published by GAs. Just so you know that some may chose not to disucss it even if it was content that would be OK. ~mods

[Bernard Gui]

The DVD is filled with deception and misleading statements, and it's nature is the same as any manner of hate-speech: a calculated manipulation of the sensitivities of others meant to create a sense of hostility or distrust towards another group of people. It's a putrid regurgitation of the same anti-Mormon breast milk that has been for decades dripping off the chins of infantile pedants who can't find a way to ween themselves from the teet of dishonest scholarship.

What you said!!!!

Bernard

[Argos]

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

[personal insult deleted.]

Watch it, Programmer, that wasn't nice. ~mods

[Tsuzuki]

At the risk of siding with the opposition, I have to say that I do not think the DVD is hate speech.

Notice this screen cap from the film.

It depicts Joseph Smith superimposed with an inverted pentagram, which is a symbol that is highly respected and revered within the Fundamentalist Evangelical community. Within this shot it can be seen that, although they do not agree with everything Smith taught, they still see him and his followers as fellow Christians.

[Zakuska]

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

From the rebuttle...

Claim: "On March 15th, 1842, Joseph joined the Masons which is an organization that believes Jesus is not divine and is on the same level as Buddha, Muhammad or any other religious teacher."

This is a severe misrepresentation of Masonry. Masonry is not a religion and has never claimed to be a religion. Masonry only requires that its members profess belief in a Supreme Being: Christians, Buddhists, Jews, and Muslims are all eligible. In this respect, Masonry is like many other such fraternal organization, or even the Boy Scouts. The policy of open membership does not make Masonry "an organization that believes Jesus is not divine." The millions of Christian Freemasons down through the centuries would find such a statement an insult to themselves and to Freemasonry.

For example, many prominent Baptists over the last two hundred years were also Masons. Robert E. Baylor, founder of Baylor University, was both a Baptist and a Mason. One of the university's presidents, William R. White (served from 1948 to 1961) was a 33rd-degree Mason and served as pastor of First Baptist Church of Austin, First Baptist Church of Oklahoma City, First Baptist Church of Lubbock, and Broadway Baptist Church of Fort Worth. He also served as executive secretary, and later as president, of The Baptist General Convention of Texas.

George W. Truett, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, was also a Mason and remained such as he served as president of the Southern Baptist Convention from 1927 to 1929, president of the Baptist World Alliance from 1934 to 1939, and trustee of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Are these men no longer Christians, or somehow involved in the "occult"?

These are just a few of the many prominent individuals who saw no conflict between their Baptist brand of Christianity and Freemasonry. Since their participation in Masonry would presumably not taint the roots of the Baptist faith, why would the several Baptist ministers associated with Search for the Truth find it necessary to insist that Masonry cast a sinister shadow over the roots of the Church?

To read more:

Famous Baptists Who Were Freemasons (Adherents.com) off-site

Claim: "Within one day Smith rose to the highest degree which is the sublime degree."

Church critics commonly make this error. The visual accompanying this claim shows an old Masonic chart showing the supplemental degrees of Scottish and York Rite Freemasonry, thereby implying that Joseph Smith was a member of these bodies. This would have been impossible, since Masonry in Illinois at the time (1842) did not have the Scottish Rite at time and there is no record of Joseph being a member of any of York rite supplemental bodies which existed in Springfield.

The video makes much of the fact that Joseph was raised in a single day, as if this was unusual and a sign of someone of great "occult" status, but fails to point out that Joseph's raising was actually done in two days and in complete accord with the Masonic practice of making a person a Mason "upon sight." The Sixth Landmark of Freemasonry states:

The prerogative of the Grand Master to grant Dispensations for conferring degrees at irregular times, is another and a very important Landmark. The statutory law of Masonry requires a month, or other determinate period, to elapse between the presentation of a petition and the election of a candidate. But the Grand Master has the power to set aside or dispense with this probation, and allow a candidate to be initiated at once. This prerogative he possessed in common with all Masters, before the enactment of the law requiring a probation, and as no statute can impair his prerogative, he still retains the power, although the Masters of Lodges no longer possess it.

â??The Landmarks of Freemasonry off-site

This was the process followed in Joseph Smith's case. While rare, it is not an unheard of or unprecedented procedure, and Grand Master Abraham Jonas (the grand lodge of Illinois grand master who raised the Prophet) was well within his rights in making Joseph a Mason "upon sight" without any sinister undertones.

Claim: "Joseph's Masonic membership affected the development of the Mormon church in many ways but the most significant area appears to be in the development of the Mormon temple ceremonies."

Masonry and the teaching methods it employs may well have had some influence in the development of the temple endowment ritual. The degree of that influence is a debated issue among Mormon scholars and laymen alike. The video does the subject a grave disservice by not acknowledging complexity of this issue. There are many more points of dis-similarity between the endowment and the rites of Freemasonry than there are of apparent parallel.

The video shows re-enactments of some LDS temple rituals (borrowed directly from the notorious anti-Mormon film The God Makers II) and implies that these originated in Masonry. This is simply not the case. The ordinances shown in the video (washing and anointing) actually first appeared in the Kirtland, Ohio, temple, many years before Joseph's involvement with Masonry.

Latter-day Saints consider the temple ceremony to be the most sacred expression of their religious worship. To have it held up for public display and discussion in this manner is in extremely poor taste. It is difficult to feel "loved" by those presenting the video when they do something which they know will be offensive and hurtful to most devout Mormons.

To read more:

The Temple Endowment and Freemasonry

See where it is deceptive now CKS?

[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

Top of the mornin' to you, CKS!

It is not hard to spot Bill McKeever in the DVD which gives Joseph Smith top billing over Jesus. He is the elderly white haired gentleman who can't seem to use the word "lie" or "liar" enough as applied to Joseph Smith.

He keeps going, and going, and going . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Dale]

CKS-Masonry and the LDS Temple article might interest you.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/respons...ple_masonry.htm

----------

With Bill someone earlier said they met him and said they felt his love for Mormons. If he can still feel love then their might be enough light left that he might see the light some day. I hope the guy becomes a modern day Paul. I really hope that change comes upon all critic's. Sad to say many of them will go down to the grave with a false assurance of salvation.

----------

With Isa. 43:10 some LDS solution's to the problem have been inventive. But the early creedal writers had a dodge word for Jewish and Moslem charges the Trinity had tendencies towards poly-theism, tri-theism. When they said God was one God, but three persons it confused the heck out of non-Christians. So what they did was get inventive, and compared God to the persons an actor played. So they basically made the person's of the Trinity individually impersonal, so they did not have to confess they were person's.

Isa. 43:10 hardly presents an inescapeable verse for LDS if other parts of the Bible presents the persons of the Godhead as three real persons. At most they pretend to be one exclusive God with each other if they are even partially three persons. So I suggest confessing the verse does teach along with other Isaiah passages the exclusiveness of God. I would then hammer the concept the persons are not defineable as persons. The absolute mono-theism of Isaiah has been backed away from by New Testament writers if the persons of the Godhead are three person's.

I was reading my book, and watching my DVD last night. I am aware of every mono-theist reference in the New Testament. One of my favorite book's is entitled Understanding The Trinity by Evangelical scholar Allister E. McGrath. I choose not to debate those references though if I cannot honestly get the critic to confess they are defineable as persons. The usual response to me which convinces me I am on the right track with critics is proof-texting pro-Trinity proof texts at me.

[freakin a man]

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

I would say that I would not let any of the people who made this DVD babysit my 5 year old.

[MorningStar]

One doesn't have to say "I hate you" for it to be hate speech.

[freakin a man]

At the risk of siding with the opposition, I have to say that I do not think the DVD is hate speech.

Notice this screen cap from the film.

It depicts Joseph Smith superimposed with an inverted pentagram, which is a symbol that is highly respected and revered within the Fundamentalist Evangelical community. Within this shot it can be seen that, although they do not agree with everything Smith taught, they still see him and his followers as fellow Christians.

My 5 year old got some toy gold metal awards and on one side of the toy is a pentagram along with of course a "Made in China" writing. I feel the influence of the devil every time I hold it in my hand.

[cdowis]

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

We have made several invitations to the producers of this DVD to talk with us here on this forum. I understand when they delivered the DVD, they made little or no attempt to speak with the LDS.

Finally, Sirrah, I note that your web site has no link to respond to your letter. I think the refusal to talk with us is indicative of a certain attitude. Certainly not the "love" you and the others pretend to have.

[freakin a man]

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

We have made several invitations to the producers of this DVD to talk with us here on this forum. I understand when they delivered the DVD, they made little or no attempt to speak with the LDS.

Finally, Sirrah, I note that your web site has no link to respond to your letter. I think the refusal to talk with us is indicative of a certain attitude. Certainly not the "love" you and the others pretend to have.

The people who delivered these DVD where mainly college students on spring break. So they probably could not debate the issues in it as there is no reason to believe they are informed on the issues. They are simply "blindly" following what their religious leaders in what they wanted to do.

[Dale]

They didn't want incidents of conflict between LDS people and the persons delivering the film. So instructing their people not to talk with LDS was probably a decently intended move on their part. I am willing to give persons who are Anti-Restoration the benifit of the doubt whenever I can.

The producers of the DVD might be wise not to come on the board. The hostility the DVD evoked in LDS has made a lot of enemies towards them. If a post could be made in the Pundits section to keep out unnecesary activity I would be open to that. I don't like infighting between Anti-Restoration activists, and Book of Mormon believers. Contention is truly evil. I feel love towards the persons in the film who I see honestly decieved.

I am all for having positive dialogue with the producers. But I am not for having hate filled discussions with them.

[Sentinus]

The people who delivered these DVD where mainly college students on spring break. So they probably could not debate the issues in it as there is no reason to believe they are informed on the issues. They are simply "blindly" following what their religious leaders in what they wanted to do.

Kinda like 18-20 year olds going door to door delivering their version of "the one true gospel"?

I still cannot believe that people here cannot see that the actions done on BOTH SIDES can and are viewed as offensive. Lds are offended by the video and Non lds are offended by them being told their religion is only "partly" true or that they will attain a "degree" of glory but not be exalted etc. etc. etc. BOTH side have commited similar transgressions, getting all "riled" up is pointless. Hold yourselves to the same standards and if you are honest and unbiased about it you would have to agree.

If you look at it from a "business" point of view all they were guilty of is "mass marketing" No different then "Door to door salesmen", only less intrusive IMO.

Hope all have a great day,

Sentinus

[Doctor Steuss]

And today?

In the US, not so much. In a few other countries though (for example: Bulgaria and Russia), violence targeted at Mormons still exists.

Do you honestly think the ADL description is accurate?

From their perspective, yes. If not, they wouldn't have made the statement. From my perspective though, no.

[Dale]

This DVD they should be ashamed they did it. The producers had not read into any LDS apologetics as far as I can tell. I just feel the presentation witheld research that contradicted their presentation. I watched the DVD partway last night and know the persons that did this film are not informed about Mormon history, doctrine, or practice. I started reading and marking up the book I got with my DVD, and see Floyd Mcelveen as one of those persons ever learning, but never becoming educated.

A good outreach program for Evangelicals in Utah would be to repudiate Anti-Mormon ministry tactics. Fire all the Anti-Mormon ministries that give them a terrible, awful reputation among LDS. Have Stephen E. Robinson, and Craig L. Blomburg enlarge, correct and revamp How Wide The Divide. Then do a DVD that has both sides in a comparitive religions style in a positive format. Let that tool be the resource LDS, and Evangelicals use with each other. I would buy a stack of such resources if Evangelicals would smarten up.

Evangelicals had Evangelicals object to some of the content of How Wide The Divide. I had a Baptist friend refuse to read it because they agreed to much. These Evangelical concerns if possible need to be taken into account in future revisions of the book.

I think FARMS needs to lead out in doing such a DVD, or book in conjunction with FAIR. It's truly dumb of the LDS community to have twelve million Mormon's, but they don't a DVD resource to promote inter-faith dialogue with Evangelicals. I don't trust the Evangelical community to smarten up so it's really the LDS community that needs to do something.

----------

Even an online Evangelical/LDS book that is later to be put in print would work.

[jwhitlock]

Kinda like 18-20 year olds going door to door delivering their version of "the one true gospel"?

I still cannot believe that people here cannot see that the actions done on BOTH SIDES can and are viewed as offensive. Lds are offended by the video and Non lds are offended by them being told their religion is only "partly" true or that they will attain a "degree" of glory but not be exalted etc. etc. etc. BOTH side have commited similar transgressions, getting all "riled" up is pointless. Hold yourselves to the same standards and if you are honest and unbiased about it you would have to agree.

I don't ever recall on my mission (and I was unaware of anyone else doing it) of knocking on a door and telling the person answering that their religion was partly true, or that they only could obtain a degree of glory without exaltation. It would have been a pointless exercise. Ours was a positive message about what Jesus Christ had restored, not a tear down of something else, no matter how you or others might try to twist it.

The two approaches are simply not the same.

The DVD's primary goal is to tear the Church down. The primary goal of a missionary is to build the Church up. The methods and goals are NOT the same.

I am amazed that you continue to equate tearing down and building up as the same method. They are not.

A story from my experience might help you to understand a little better where Latter-day Saints are coming from when junk like this DVD comes out.

We had a sister in our ward whose husband passed away. A few days after the obituary appeared in the paper, a "loving" fundamentalist sent her a letter saying that he had noticed that her husband was a Mormon, and that unfortunately, since he had obviously not been saved before he died, he was now in hell. Out of "concern" for her, he wanted to let her know that she could still be saved, and that she wouldn't have to be in hell if she would turn from her false religion and embrace the truth.

I was a friend of the family and they asked me to deal with the issue because they didn't think they could address it productively at the time (I wonder why!) We went and visited with the individual who sent the letter; he was actually a well known "pillar of the Christian Church" in the community. When asked why he sent out such an inappropriate letter, he said that he didn't see anything wrong with it, and that it was simply an evangelizing approach. Much like the rationale I see among many anti-Mormons. He was informed that if he ever did anything like this again, we would refer him to the proper authorities and he could plead his case in front of the judge and see if he could persuade him it wasn't hate speech.

As members of the Church, we don't do stuff like this. The Church does not condone tearing something down, no matter how hard you try to pin us with improper perspectives of doctrines of the apostacy, or God telling Joseph not to join any other church, or any of the other things you come up with.

But anti-Mormons feel since they have the truth, the end justifies the means. And many of us have had to put up with billboards, and DVDs, and hate mail, and hate pamphlets for so long, that we are frustrated when someone equates our missionary methods with the approach anti-Mormons take.

THAT is my unbiased and honest approach.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

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

Hi CKS,

I would like to thank you as well for your understanding and sensitivity here. I'm not sure if there is an official LDS position (other than revelation), but I tend to like Greg Kearney's ideas on the subject. If I understand his position correctly (Bro. Kearney, if you read this, and I've got your position wrong, please correct me and have mercy upon my ignorance) he feels that the Masonic aspects were a messenger of sorts. The â??messengerâ? (Masonic) was used because people were familiar with it, and it was utilized to convey the message (which isn't Masonic). Greg has a paper titled "The Message and the Messenger..." which I believe is on FAIR.

I suppose that another position could also be taken that the Masonic "rights" were remnants of the actual ancient temple ceremony (preserved, although somewhat diluted and changed) by the Freemasons and/or Templar.

Luvs, Hugs, and non D&C 89 forbidden Drugs,

Stu

Edit: Here's Greg Kearney's paper -- Latter-day Saints and Freemasonry

[Sentinus]

I don't ever recall on my mission (and I was unaware of anyone else doing it) of knocking on a door and telling the person answering that their religion was partly true, or that they only could obtain a degree of glory without exaltation. It would have been a pointless exercise. Ours was a positive message about what Jesus Christ had restored, not a tear down of something else, no matter how you or others might try to twist it.

The two approaches are simply not the same.

The DVD's primary goal is to tear the Church down. The primary goal of a missionary is to build the Church up. The methods and goals are NOT the same.

I am amazed that you continue to equate tearing down and building up as the same method. They are not.

A story from my experience might help you to understand a little better where Latter-day Saints are coming from when junk like this DVD comes out.

We had a sister in our ward whose husband passed away. A few days after the obituary appeared in the paper, a "loving" fundamentalist sent her a letter saying that he had noticed that her husband was a Mormon, and that unfortunately, since he had obviously not been saved before he died, he was now in hell. Out of "concern" for her, he wanted to let her know that she could still be saved, and that she wouldn't have to be in hell if she would turn from her false religion and embrace the truth.

I was a friend of the family and they asked me to deal with the issue because they didn't think they could address it productively at the time (I wonder why!) We went and visited with the individual who sent the letter; he was actually a well known "pillar of the Christian Church" in the community. When asked why he sent out such an inappropriate letter, he said that he didn't see anything wrong with it, and that it was simply an evangelizing approach. Much like the rationale I see among many anti-Mormons. He was informed that if he ever did anything like this again, we would refer him to the proper authorities and he could plead his case in front of the judge and see if he could persuade him it wasn't hate speech.

As members of the Church, we don't do stuff like this. The Church does not condone tearing something down, no matter how hard you try to pin us with improper perspectives of doctrines of the apostacy, or God telling Joseph not to join any other church, or any of the other things you come up with.

But anti-Mormons feel since they have the truth, the end justifies the means. And many of us have had to put up with billboards, and DVDs, and hate mail, and hate pamphlets for so long, that we are frustrated when someone equates our missionary methods with the approach anti-Mormons take.

THAT is my unbiased and honest approach.

If you did get in the door and then shared a message regarding the first vision and the need for a restoration then yes IMO it is the same. If you only taught of Jesus Christ and his love and never mentioned APOSTACY or the need to become LDS then yes you are right. As soon as you start to talk of the need for a restoration or anything that promotes the LDS view of religion then it becomes no different. In the end it is all about perception. Since you are "building up" (The one true church) then you are doing no wrong. But since they are "tearing down" your beliefs, they are wrong still no difference here and I am sure the "average unbiased joe" would agree.

Kindly,

Sentinus

[Bsix]

This may be a subtle point...but the Anti Defamation League's statement was not limited to the DVD itself.

In fact, the official statement by the ADL does not address any of the content of the DVD. Rather, it reacts to the history and spirit of the intent of the "distribution" of the DVD.

Here is the official ADL statement. It can be viewed here.

ADL Condemns "Mormon-Bashing" DVD

Phoenix, AZ, March 27, 2007......The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) condemned the distribution of an anti-Mormon DVD by the organization Concerned Christians as nothing more than "Mormon-bashing."

Bill Straus, ADL Arizona Regional Director, observed: "This is the same kind of plain, old-fashioned Mormon-bashing that Jim Robertson and his group have been spewing for over a quarter-of-a-century. The only difference is that back then, it was the film, 'The God Makers,' and today it's the DVD, 'Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith.' It was wrong then, and it's wrong now."

ADL Regional Board Chair David Bodney added, "Hate directed at any of us is hate directed at all of us. From whomever that hate comes, and to whomever it's directed, ADL takes it very seriously and will continue to speak out against it."

Emphasis added

Six: I think that the ADL is not out of line to label the long and harsh style of attacks on the LDS Church by those associated with the DVD and its distribution as hateful. They (Concerned Christians) hate us. They hate our Church. It oozes from every pore and every action they take against us. The fact that they are now attempting to use high production and to hide the hate does not alter the fact.

I think that McKeever is simply trying to stir up controversy because the Chruch did not react and instruct members to avoid the DVD...and that the Church was so restrained in its response...and that a respected rights organization called them out for what they are.

Regards,

Six

[jwhitlock]

If you did get in the door and then shared a message regarding the first vision and the need for a restoration then yes IMO it is the same. If you only taught of Jesus Christ and his love and never mentioned APOSTACY or the need to become LDS then yes you are right. As soon as you start to talk of the need for a restoration or anything that promotes the LDS view of religion then it becomes no different. In the end it is all about perception. Since you are "building up" (The one true church) then you are doing no wrong. But since they are "tearing down" your beliefs, they are wrong still no difference here and I am sure the "average unbiased joe" would agree.

Interesting.

I'm curious; do you also consider the efforts of Jesus' apostles to build up the Church by superceding the Jewish religion to also be inappropriate?

[Sentinus]

Interesting.

I'm curious; do you also consider the efforts of Jesus' apostles to build up the Church by superceding the Jewish religion to also be inappropriate?

I never said the acts of either side were inappropriate you must have me confused with someone else. I am simply pointing out the obvious similarities.

So in answer to your question... No.

Are the LDS missionary efforts inappropriate....No

Was the Dvd "missionary effort" inappropriate....No

It is simply again a matter of perception.

Hope this helps,

Sentinus