More DVD Fun!

[Catholic Girl]

What they have done is PROVE they are lying when they say it was out of love. So how does one who have PROVEN themselves to be a lier, have any credibility in their claims against JS as a lier?

Interesting.

Let's not carried away or throw out the baby with bathwater!

Like I said before, I think many of them did participate either in the production and/or distribution of this DVD with a genuine "love" and interest in "helping" LDS.

So who messed that up?

Was it the leadership? Was it just the guy who wrote this letter? I can't dismiss the fact that maybe the project from start to finish was sinister and vindictive.

That bothers me greatly.

[Pahoran]

Hi CG--

Well, watch the video, I'd suggest. And, then, comment about it. And then comment about Bill's letter in response to the LDS response to it.

Not quite. Actually it's a letter addressed (but probably never delivered) to the Church, "responding to" (or complaining about) someone else's (i.e. the ADL's) response to the DVD. And the fact that the Church website reported on it without condemnation; how dare they?

Bill's no "idiot," CG.

So if he cannot be excused on the basis of little wit, what excuse does he have for this atrocity?

I suppose the letter, in and of itself, was reason enough for you to conclude such...? Good for you, I guess.

Good for her indeed, but do you really think the letter shows McKeever and his "ministry" in a favourable light?

Your own present hostility towards me seems to date from my raising this question once before, so I'm sorry if I've offended you again, but what is anyone reading this letter supposed to conclude? Of course the video is going to make all the obligatory "lurve" noises; this letter, intended "for Christians only," lets us see behind the facade; here we are a fly on the wall, as it were, to a conversation that the letter-writer seems to have assumed would be kept in-house. Why should we not regard its unguarded comments as more sincere than the usual "lurve" script?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Catholic Girl]

Hi CG--

Well, watch the video, I'd suggest. And, then, comment about it. And then comment about Bill's letter in response to the LDS response to it.

Bill's no "idiot," CG. I suppose the letter, in and of itself, was reason enough for you to conclude such...? Good for you, I guess.

You're, perhaps, incredibly perceptive. You don't even need to watch the video itself to comment definitively about a letter written in response to the LDS response about the video itself.

Good for you? I think.

Best.

CKS

I'll get around to watching it. It's just been so crazy and my DVR has been so backed up.

As a non-LDS, I admit I was TURNED OFF immediately to this project simply because of the way this letter was written and then hearing later how this was done all "out of love" when I think this letter clearly contradicted that assertion.

I didn't comment about the open letter yet (I know I have to watch the DVD first), just the letter to the distributors that I've seen discussed here and realize it's slightly off this immediate topic. So that's my bad.

I was simply curious if any other non-LDS were bothered by the contradiction of THAT letter and the "love" claim and possibly any discussion or speculation on who or how this "goof" occured?

I think this error is grave enough that it makes me very suspicious of the DVD and I think that is partly why I've procrastinated watching it.

[jwhitlock]

Hi CG--

Well, watch the video, I'd suggest. And, then, comment about it. And then comment about Bill's letter in response to the LDS response to it.

Bill's no "idiot," CG. I suppose the letter, in and of itself, was reason enough for you to conclude such...? Good for you, I guess.

You're, perhaps, incredibly perceptive. You don't even need to watch the video itself to comment definitively about a letter written in response to the LDS response about the video itself.

Good for you? I think.

Soooo.... you're indicating that our friend Bill wrote both the DVD distribution letter AND the open letter to the First Presidency? Or is something confused here? CG was talking about the distribution letter.

The distribution letter was the first indication that something underhanded was taking place. The contents of the DVD itself (and I have watched it) confirmed that the approach was underhanded and misrepresentative of the Church and its beliefs. And Bill's open letter to the First Presidency confirmed that the grip on truthful reality of all the perpetrators of this sordid hit piece is, well, tenuous at best.

[cksalmon]

Soooo.... you're indicating that our friend Bill wrote both the DVD distribution letter AND the open letter to the First Presidency? Or is something confused here? CG was talking about the distribution letter.

The distribution letter was the first indication that something underhanded was taking place. The contents of the DVD itself (and I have watched it) confirmed that the approach was underhanded and misrepresentative of the Church and its beliefs. And Bill's open letter to the First Presidency confirmed that the grip on truthful reality of all the perpetrators of this sordid hit piece is, well, tenuous at best.

As far as I can tell, CG was responding to the letter by Bill McKeever to the LDS Church. I don't think s/he was talking about the distribution letter. Perhaps s/he can clarify. I could be wrong. Who is the one idiotic person writing the letter?

CKS

[jwhitlock]

As far as I can tell, CG was responding to the letter by Bill McKeever to the LDS Church. I don't think s/he was talking about the distribution letter. Perhaps s/he can clarify. I could be wrong. Who is the one idiotic person writing the letter?

CKS

In her post (#122), she quoted the distribution letter. The OP (mine) quoted the open letter from Bill.

The name at the bottom of the distribution letter is Chip Thompson; perhaps he's the mystery idiot.

[Dale]

Oh come on now , Dale. What did they have to fear? It's not like we have an army of little old LDS ladies in electric wheelchairs lined up to run them over.

Who say's they were fearing fear? I knew this local Anti-Mormon. He claimed this large Samoan Mormon beat him up while tracting. Maybe they were afraid of incidents like that.

[ed2276]

Who say's they were fearing fear? I knew this local Anti-Mormon. He claimed this large Samoan Mormon beat him up while tracting. Maybe they were afraid of incidents like that.

Ummm , sorry Dale. I guess you didn't see the thread about the little old LDS lady in Arizona who ran over one of the street screechers with her electric wheelchair. Just my little attempt at humour there.

[Catholic Girl]

In her post (#122), she quoted the distribution letter. The OP (mine) quoted the open letter from Bill.

The name at the bottom of the distribution letter is Chip Thompson; perhaps he's the mystery idiot.

Yes, that is correct. Sorry for the confusion, guys.

I have no reason to think this Bill guy who wrote this open letter in the OP is the same guy who wrote the distribution letter.

I did see the name "Chris Thompson" at the bottom of the distribution letter, but it certainly isn't clear that he was the author since it simply states:

For more information or to order quantities of DVDs contact Chip Thompson at:

E-mail: ephchip@gmail.com Phone: Office â??

435-283-0178 or Cell â?? 435-851-4588

He could just be the innocent national contact person and might not have had anything to do at all with the letter.

So that is my question. Who IS responsible for this letter? It could have been this Chip Thompson, or some other single rogue person who did not put their name on it, or it could be the entire leadership responsible for this project. I would imagine many people read it before it went out for distribution so why would it allowed to be distributed in this form--other than the fact that it reflects their TRUE feelings of contempt for the LDS?

Was the "love" claim after they received so much criticism? A little circling the wagons?

So no, I just don't see how one "mystery idiot" could be responsible for this calamity.

I seriously think this effort did far much more harm than good for their cause, unfortunately. I think the idea of it was good, I don't know about the content yet because I can't get past the dichotomy of this contemptuous letter and their claim of "love".

[Dale]

I am reading the book, and watching the DVD. I am a disabled person. So I have paid for transportation for 11 hours a week, So my LDS nurse, and this Community of Christ/RLDS went down to Taco Time to have lunch. But I got my red marking pencil, and will make comments about Floyd Mcelveens book as I talk outloud when I read sometimes. I am having so much fun with the book and DVD and it really does add to my testimony of the Restored Gospel.

Chip Thompsom I happen to be greatful that he had me sent a book, and DVD. Just because I know counter-cultism is bad doesn't mean I have anything against him as a person. I take issue with his message not him as a person.

The DVD, and book was a mistake for my Evangelical friends to get involved in. If Evangelicals want a positive witness to LDS they need to revise, and enlarge How Wide the Divide by Craig. L. Blomburg and Stephen E. Robinson. If they want to do a comparative religions DVD appoint an fair panel of Evangelical, and LDS scholars needs to be able to produce the DVD together. They need to avoid going to counter-cult ministries, and find a better class of apologists, and scholars. I am sure FAIR, and FARMs might possibly get them some help in producing the DVD. This DVD they released is so wrong about the facts that it only hurts our Evangelical friends intellectual reputation to let the counter-cultists hate mongerors do it.

I am sure that some participants in the film honestly just wanted to share their Jesus, and their gospel of grace with LDS people. Bill's not the one whom Evangelicals need to have out and about representing them. The counter-cult movement makes LDS people feel Evangelicals hate Mormons. Even if he feel's some sort of love for LDS his actions feel like bad love to me. Can't they find an kind Evangelical scholar to love Book of Mormon believers, why does it always have to be the counter-cultists that love us?

[Smith]

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.

Yet there is a difference. When LDS missionaries go out they do not target only one sector of the population. They share the message of the restored gospel with any and all who will listen. Their message is the same to one and all. On the other hand, this little DVD exercise has one message only which purpose is to tear down the LDS church and to keep people out of it. It is not a general message to one and all to come join with them in the blessings of whatever gospel it is that they have.

Some key differences I would say that are quite telling in my mind.

[Zakuska]

Actually... their message is the same to one and all...

"Anything is fine as long as you dont join the Mormons."

[Beowulf]

"I am simply pointing out the obvious similarities. " said Sentinus

Me: What similarities? LDS missionaries preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to any who will listen. By contrast, Bill McKeever and his friends preach Mormonism-is-a-cult.

McKeever professes to be offended by LDS preaching of the Apostacy. So? Many other Christians have noted problems over the centuries, and have attempted to reform Christianity as best they could. Does that make THEM hateful to everybody else? LDS just happened to be more successful at this effort, using Restoration instead of Reform. It has nothing to do with McKeever's belief in Christianity (whatever that might be... it is rather difficult to discover in the midst of his anti-Mormon ranting)

Finally (not having read this thread all the way through...) the ADL by protesting the DVD as hate speech was merely doing what they do best. Which is attacking spiteful hate language wherever it appears, and whoever it is targeted against. I say Bravo to them!

Beowulf

[cksalmon]

Yes, that is correct. Sorry for the confusion, guys.

Hi CG--

I think the confusion belongs only to me. I missed the relevant, prior post.

Sorry.

Best.

CKS

[Homestar Runner]

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.

I listened to a radio interview with the ADL rep that actually put out the statement. It was kind of the exact opposite of what JD heard. The guy even stopped and corrected the radio host when he called Tri-grace a "hate group".

I urge folks to go listen to that interview before judging the ADL. (I'm not able to search for the link now, but it was on one of the related links on this board.)

HSR

[Kenngo1969]

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.

Why? CKSalmon, have you everâ??in response to the assertion of a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintsâ??s assertion that one can know the truth of, e.g., the Book of Mormon, by how one feels in response to oneâ??s sincere query to God according to Moroni 10:3-5â??said that feelings are not to be trusted, that the heart is wicked, and so on? If so, then essentially what youâ??re saying is that itâ??s not OK to trust oneâ??s feelings if they tell that person that the Church of Jesus Christ is true, but it is OK to trust those feelings if they tell the person that the Church is false. Do I have that right?

[cksalmon]

Why? CKSalmon, have you everâ??in response to the assertion of a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintsâ??s assertion that one can know the truth of, e.g., the Book of Mormon, by how one feels in response to oneâ??s sincere query to God according to Moroni 10:3-5â??said that feelings are not to be trusted, that the heart is wicked, and so on? If so, then essentially what youâ??re saying is that itâ??s not OK to trust oneâ??s feelings if they tell that person that the Church of Jesus Christ is true, but it is OK to trust those feelings if they tell the person that the Church is false. Do I have that right?

Hi Ken--

Do you have that right? No, I don't think so. I don't think that negative feelings are indicative that the LDS faith is untrue and so should be trusted unreservedly without reference to any other modes of information-gathering.

My point is much more general. Let's divorce the issue from Mormonism.

Falsehood presented as truth should ideally produce negative feelings. I take that as axiomatic; I don't have a proof for it. That's simply because lies aren't good. They're bad. We all know this. If one were to feel good about a lie, it would suggest that one is out of step with reality.

If you were aware of a lie about which (or with regard to which) I have a positive emotional response, I would think it incumbent upon you (given an appropriate interactional context) to disabuse me of my belief in the lie. All things being equal, that "disabusal" would promote within me a negative emotional response to the lie I'd previously believed.

It's not just okay to feel negatively about a lie; it's, in fact, the proper human response to a lie. Encouraging that response does not mean one expects it to trump all other concerns. Obviously, other factors must be weighed. But, of course, the bearer of truth would wish his audience to feel as negatively toward a perceived falsehood as he himself does. That's normal.

That said, I don't think the DVD's aim was to produce a negative emotional response. I'm responding generally to your pointed question.

Best.

CKS

[Bsix]

Personally, I think the DVD is a failure.

1. It is a failure because secret plan made the Evangelical groups look underhanded. Such tactics cost them the support of the secular community. Even the Salt Lake Tribune...who is no supporter of the LDS Church...editorialized against the method by which the DVD was distributed.

2. It is a failure because the distribution plan apparently failed. What was supposed to be a mass landing on the doorsteps of LDS members turned into a small, unorganized, distribution.

3. It is a failure because the statements and letters associated with the Evangelical ground troops distributing the DVD's turned Mormons off. It made the DVD come off as just another wave of the antiMormon street screechers.

4. It is a failure because the DVD itself was nothing more than standard issue antiMormon rhetoric from the same folks who always attack the Church. The only thing that was different is the production values of the DVD.

5. It's a failure because the producers tried to fake Mormons into believing this material from the LDS Church. If the packaging is misleading...what does that tell you aout what's inside.

6. It's a failure because no a lot of conversions seem to have resulted from the distribution of the DVD. I'm sure there will be some...but we don't see Mormons leaving in droves.

7. It is a failure because the DVD event is already almost forgotten...history...a memory. There is no forward momentum.

8. It is a failure because newspapers and organizations like the Anti Defamation League called out the Evangelicals for criticism and put them on the defensive. McKeever's open letter is a tacit admission of defeat. Its a last ditch attempt to turn public realtions lemons into lemonaid.

In the end, I think that the Evangelicals behind this DVD just couldn't help themselves. They have a one-track approach to witnessing to the cults. It is almost as if attack-and-destroy is a part of many Evangelical countercult witnessing.

Personally, I hope they never smarten up.

Regards,

Six

[freakin a man]

I sort of liken the DVD to someone who is a terrible cook coming over to my house and complaining about the taste of the food I make. They can say I did this wrong and that wrong but if they are put in the kitchen, they would do no better but would do worse.

They complain about the turkey, steak, prime rib, jello, potatos, and corn on the LDS dinner table but if we look at what their dinner table consists of, its overdone Ramon. And they want the LDS to abondon our dinner spread for theirs. I don't think so.

[Marmonboy]

They complain about the turkey, steak, prime rib, jello, potatos, and corn on the LDS dinner table but if we look at what their dinner table consists of, its overdone Ramon.

Ramon? Quien es Ramon?

[juliann]

Hi CG--

Well, watch the video, I'd suggest. And, then, comment about it. And then comment about Bill's letter in response to the LDS response to it.

Bill's no "idiot," CG. I suppose the letter, in and of itself, was reason enough for you to conclude such...? Good for you, I guess.

You're, perhaps, incredibly perceptive. You don't even need to watch the video itself to comment definitively about a letter written in response to the LDS response about the video itself.

Good for you? I think.

Best.

CKS

Oh, come on. When the Jewish Anti-Defamation League comes out against something as strongly as they did and other EVS are refusing to participate in the baggie brigade and even speaking out there is just nowhere to go with this. Give it up. They goofed and they goofed bad. And I would never encourage someone to watch something this ugly when there has been so much review of it.

Even FAIR has been stunned by the response to this....I don't think it would be incorrect to estimate that it has doubled FAIR's exposure if the email and media response is any indication.

[Kenngo1969]

Falsehood presented as truth should ideally produce negative feelings. I take that as axiomatic; I don't have a proof for it.

Hmmm â?¦ But why a negative emotional response? Why not a negative intellectual response? To relate this back to the DVD, thatâ??s one of the things I find perplexing about it. Itâ??s purportedly directed toward members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While good fruits of the spirit (i.e., good feelings e.g., love, joy, peace, et cetera, see I Tim. 5:22) are certainly part of the process of gaining a testimony of the truthfulness of the Church, theyâ??re certainly not the sole appeal of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as presented by the LDS Church.

The fact that the LDS Gospelâ??s appeal isnâ??t solely based on an emotional response is what I think those involved in the production of the DVD miss or ignore. They then proceed to treat their interpretation of biblical passages they say fly in the face of the â??alleged truthfulnessâ? (my phrase) of that Gospel as self-evident. (Thereâ??s a lot of â??This-is-what-the-Bible-saysâ? in the DVD, and not a lot, if any, of â??While-we-understand-Mormonismâ??s-appeal-what-we-have-is-better-and-hereâ??s-why.â?)

If those involved in the DVDâ??s production were really interested in an effective counter-witness (rather than in simply uprooting the fragile testimonies of those whose roots were never that deeply into the Church of Jesus Christ to begin with) they would have to start from a point of view that understands whatâ??s so appealing about the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to begin with â?¦ and that appeal goes well beyond mere â??feelings, nothing more than feelings, tryinâ?? to forgeeetttt my feelings of â?¦â? (Oh, sorry! Got a little carried away, there. )

That's simply because lies aren't good. They're bad. We all know this. If one were to feel good about a lie, it would suggest that one is out of step with reality.

Right â?¦ but one doesnâ??t have to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints â?¦ or even particularly well-disposed toward the Church or its members to question the logic behind using a â??the-LDS-Church-and-its-doctrines-are-nothing-but-a-tissue-of-liesâ? approach to â??witnessâ? to its members. But more or less, thatâ??s exactly the approach favored by the producers and purveyors of the â??Jesus Josephâ? DVD, as well as others, such as â??The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon.â?

You can argue all you want whether the foregoing is an apt characterization of the approach they use, but the fact is that people of this stripe treat the â??truthâ? their own positions as basically self-evident, while completely ignoring the huge assumptions on which their own positions are based. For example, if everybody agreed on what â??the Bible saysâ? to the extent that the DVDâ??s producers/purveyors would have us believe they do, Christianity wouldnâ??t be nearly as fractured as it has become. (The typical response to that assertion is, â??Differences? [snort!] Tish-tosh! The Baptists are our brothers and sisters; the Methodists are our brothers and sisters; the Lutherans are our brothers and sisters â?¦ In fact, the only group proclaiming its Christianity that will be left outside the circle of this â??one big happy familyâ?? as we all join hands and sing Kumbaya is them Mormons!â?)

If the ilk of the DVDâ??s producers/purveyors really want to witness effectively to Mormons (without just being satisfied to cherry-pick those few whose roots were never all that deep into it to begin with), theyâ??re going to have to come up with better arguments than, â??Joseph Smith was a bad guy,â? â??Joseph Smith was a false prophet,â? â??Joseph Smith lied,â? â??The Bible says [x] but Joseph Smith/The Book of Mormon/[insert-Church-leader-here] says [y],â? and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Effective counter-witnessing to Mormons will have to account for the facts that the vast majority of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have heard the arguments the counter-Mormons use; that those arguments have been dealt with; that even if they hadnâ??t, most members of the Church remain unswayed by them; and that the Restored Gospel of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been appealingâ??emotionally, yes, but also intellectually, to people for 186 years. (Yes, I know, the Roman Catholic Church dwarfs the Restored Church of Jesus Christ â?¦ but you donâ??t really want to hitch your wagon to that star, do you? Besides â?¦ give us another eighteen hundred years and see how the numbers stack up then!) If Mormonism were â??The Big Lie,â? it would have died out long ago! If making that assertion were all it took to sway the faithful, I would be the first to say, â??Shucks! Knew it couldnâ??t last! Will the last person to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints please turn out the lights?â?

[pcarthew]

Just sounds like someoneâ??s anti campaign went nowhere near as good as they thought it would. That DVD should have a nomination for an academy award for â??best comedy 2007â??. He could not cover his intolerable hate for the church, I feel sorry for him. The church canâ??t win, if they made an official response the brethren would all called liars and spin doctors. They say nothing at all and they are seen as complete evil doers for not responding. These people cannot really expect us to take them seriously. Imagine spending all of that money on the DVD and getting no official response, probably rather frustrating. They want to lie about us then they want to manipulate the response!!! (from us). Dream on!

[cksalmon]

Hey Ken--

I appreciate your thoughtful response. I can get behind your analysis here:

But the fact is that people of this stripe treat the â??truthâ? their own positions as basically self-evident, while completely ignoring the huge assumptions on which their own positions are based.

Bracketing the issue of whether or not the DVD's production was morally justified, however, I don't think it possible to produce even a relatively "short" presentation of this nature without punting to foundational claims at several levels. Maybe that means the DVD shouldn't have been produced, or maybe it doesn't. Regardless, if the producers were to have provided detailed rationales for their own assumptions, and thoroughly investigated how those assumptions interface wtih Mormonism, and then presented Mormon claims, well... they would have had to have produced a twelve-DVD series or something.

Obviously that was not their aim. I do take your point that we often treat our own positions anent any number of issues as self-evident. I'd include you and I in that group. Or, at least myself. It's something I must constantly work against.

Best.

CKS

[consiglieri]

The Jewish president of the ADL condemns the DVD. As the Jewish people have received a large amount of anti-Semitism over the years, it makes sense that they would know whereof they speak.

CatholicGirl also gives the DVD two thumbs down. As the Catholic people have received a large amount of anti-Catholicism over the years, it makes sense that they would know whereof they speak.

I would like to express my appreciation to the ADL and to CatholicGirl and to all persons who share their sentiments for standing up for a religion that is not their own. I think this is in the best tradition of Christian conduct.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri