LDSToronto Posted March 20, 2012 Author Posted March 20, 2012 What makes you believe the later is not the first?Have you ever considered that nearly all of what is "uncomfortable" toward the Church and paints the Church in a "negative light" is in fact lies and deceptive argument? Just so you know, it in fact is. Not saying of course that there isn't any human fallibility in Church history, but nearly all claimed, and especially nearly all claimed against the Church itself is definitively lies, deception, and misrepresentation.I disagree.H.
Evergrow Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 All apostates are anti Mormons but not all anti Mormons are apostates... Or perhaps it is the other way around?That's not accurate. A person can be an Apostate without holding any ill feelings or views toward the Church thus not be "against" the Church. They can simply not be interested and be "for" other things. They can even have positive and pro feelings toward the Church, and even defend it.Thus, to be an "anti" it requires active behavior in word and deed.Also, there is another level. impersonally, I only call people anti's if they misrepresent and unfairly degrade the Church.Someone in my view who simply disagrees with Mormonism but portray's it honestly and with character in my view is not an anti, they simply disagree, and simply speak about it comparing etc. Sadly, few such people exist, but they do exist. Most sadly are anti's.Being an anti in my view has a "moral" component. It is a line that has been crossed into immorality.
Evergrow Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 I disagree.H.Yes, we know. But you would be wrong. Many of us are converts to the Church, and we know anti-mormonism's claims, and we compare them with the full facts and truth. We actually know that your side is perversion and lie concerning Mormonism. We wouldn't be Mormon if your side actually had a case and wasn't misrepresenting the truth. 1
LDSToronto Posted March 20, 2012 Author Posted March 20, 2012 Yes, we know. 5 posts and you know me, huh? But you would be wrong. Many of us are converts to the Church, and we know anti-mormonism's claims, and we compare them with the full facts and truth.I am a convert to the church, too. We actually know that your side is perversion and lie concerning Mormonism. We wouldn't be Mormon if your side actually had a case and wasn't misrepresenting the truth.Wait, what exactly is my side? It seems you've jumped to a conclusion that really hasn't got much to do with the topic of this thread. H.
Duncan Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 Drive was one of the best movies I saw last year.Dude, he's a fantastic actor!Agree to disagree I guess hahathree words, Remember.the.titans.
frankenstein Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 We have the same problem with those who use the word apologist to poison the well. I unsuccessfully asked an antagonistic poster to address individual positions instead of repeatedly responding to unnamed "apologists" in an uncomplimentary manner. We had stopped the use of anti-Mormon (critic was substituted) until the critics refused to respond in kind. We have another prominent critic doing it right now. If critics won't stop using apologist as a way to avoid addressing individual approaches, or as a slur, it is unfair to prevent the other side from using anti-Mormon in the same way. It is a lazy practice on both sides but if it is going to be enforced there has to be cooperation from all sides.OR those who claim to be Christians could act like Christians and turn the other cheek. And given that someone was recently railed for not following a particular websites rules, just put in the rules.
LeSellers Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 I always thought an apostate was someone who actively taught false doctrines or spread teachings contrary to church teachings. It seemed more than a denial or loss of testimony was required.You were wrong.Apostate means someone who changed: "To lean in the opposite direction; to stand apart or away". Synonyms are turncoat, deserter."Anti" means against or opposed to. An anti-Mormon is someone who is opposed to "Mormonism", however harshly. Anyone who works against the Kingdom of God is an anti-mormon. Rob Bowman is an anti-mormon, even though he dislikes the rubric. You have shown signs of anti-mormonism, but not to the extant others have. It's a term like "pregnant": one either is or is not, and the personal preference of the person has no bearing on whether he is.Lehi 1
LDSToronto Posted March 20, 2012 Author Posted March 20, 2012 You were wrong.In an earlier post, I showed that my interpretation matched what the Handbook says of apostasy.H.
blackstrap Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 Is there a difference in the desired outcome of each type,anti or apostate? Does the anti want the eventual disappearance of all things Mormon,kind of like Hezbola vs the Israelies?The apostate may prefer that the Church leave 'him' alone to follow his own beliefs. Sadly,many apostates are not happy to be left alone but must endeavor to convince others that their path is truer,apparently to justify their new position.
Ares Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 In my opinion this is a personal thread. One of the mods answered already. Where there is contention there will be names. We will make a judgement call when it is reported or needed - but you can't swing a cat in a small room and complain when someone calls you an animal hater.
Recommended Posts