Ad Hominem And Defending The Faith.

[Calm]

Abinadi being a prophet and Jesus being our Master likely had something to do with why they did it though....

[ERayR]

Abinadi being a prophet and Jesus being our Master likely had something to do with why they did it though....

And I think we have the obligation to reprove with sharpness as long as we do it as outlined in the D&C 121. However, in the heat of apologetic discussions we may find it quite difficult to adhere to those requirements.

[CASteinman]

Abinadi being a prophet and Jesus being our Master likely had something to do with why they did it though....

"Would God that all the Lord's People were Prophets". - Moses.

[DBMormon]

As for Walter Martin, does his false or misrepresented credentials mean everything he says is suspect? As in once a misrepresentation always a misrepresentation? I am not defending Walter Martin.

I think it is up to each individual to decide if severe flaws in one's behavior discredit what he says. For me I take everything Dr. Martin does with a grain of salt..... he is a fraud and goes to a lot of trouble to portray himself as something he isn't.... so where is his line??? now is everything he says false.... no, but I Know to what length he will go to make sure his version of truth is accepted.

Also can we get away from using the word anti-mormon. I think the word critic is both shorter and more fair

Not that I ahven't used it myself, but as I am more aware of issues I think critic is a better word.

Edited May 14, 2012 by reelmormon

[thesometimesaint]

reelmormon:

I think it is possible to be a critic and not an Antimormon. It is one thing to disagree with someones religion, it is quite another to profit financially from that disagreement.

[DBMormon]

I just think of the 100's of times we use that word... so few are what we would really label an anti-mormon. It makes a conversation a me versus you dialogue where the word critic can be used to describes one's view being different on all things or perhaps one smaill point of dissagreement

[Calm]

"Would God that all the Lord's People were Prophets". - Moses.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that they are. As ERayR pointed out, not everyone in these discussions follows the precepts of how we are to "reprove with sharpness followed by increased love"....they often never get to the "increased love" because they are too busy justifying the reproving.

[KevinG]

Complaining that apologists are guilty of debating in an unsavory fashion is reminiscent of Rules for Radicals. When someone makes a practice of critiquing the Mormons (sometimes in very unflattering and fanciful terms) then starts complaining about the response they are not trying to inform. They are trying to demonize. A single example of a hasty or personal response is all they need to start pointing the finger at the responding party and screaming "unfair!" (Picture two children in the back seat of a car. Child one pokes at child two until child two loses his temper and smacks child one - child one instantly screams "Moooom! Johnny hit me!)

* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

Edited May 14, 2012 by KevinG

[KevinG]

I just think of the 100's of times we use that word... so few are what we would really label an anti-mormon. It makes a conversation a me versus you dialogue where the word critic can be used to describes one's view being different on all things or perhaps one smaill point of dissagreement

I rarely use the term anti-Mormon unless it is obvious that the person I am addressing is seriously opposed to Mormonism. Critic is usually more common. Complaint-ant is probably something I should consider using more.

There have been many thoughtful discussions on this board and a few less thoughtful debates as to the use of the term Anti-Mormon. It is worth looking those up if the term bothers you.

[Calm]

I just think of the 100's of times we use that word... so few are what we would really label an anti-mormon.

There are many I know who use the label when it is appropriate and important to make the distinction. I rarely use it, but I do use it when I know I am in conversation with those who use it in the same restrictive manner that I do myself and that they will interpret it like I mean it, which is those who are actively attempting to harm the Church and those who speak of their hatred of it and desire it to be gone.

I think that using it with care and precision is all that one should expect as it needs to be pointed out if someone is working to harm the Church. To remove the usage of the label completely removes a valuable attention getter. Even though I think the terms racist or anti-semite are overused, I would deny no one the chance to use either or other similar labels because it is very important at times that people realize how destructive an attitude is and terms like "anti-Semite" and "anti-Mormon" can help accomplish this.

Identifying anti-mormons is important enough that the Lord gave instructions from early on to keep a record of such behaviour, IIRC. (Can't recall the scripture I am thinking of off the top of my head, but it is in the D&C; perhaps someone more awake than I can list it)

As to those who use it inappropriately, we need to speak up and correct them but we need to make sure we are doing it for the right reason because it seems to me it is just as bad to attempt to shut down someone though attacking them for labeling another as an anti-mormon as it is for someone to try and shut them down by using the label of "anti-mormon".

Edited May 14, 2012 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

Also can we get away from using the word anti-mormon. I think the word critic is both shorter and more fair

I will say anti-Mormon any time I see someone who is clearly trying to destroy the Faith and Peace of the Saints. Sugar coating evil only makes it more acceptable to swallow.

I don't think all of the people who look a the Restoration critically are trying to destroy the Faith and Peace of the Saints. Harold Bloom and Jan Shipps come to mind. But there are plenty of anti-Mormons out there.

[DBMormon]

I will say anti-Mormon any time I see someone who is clearly trying to destroy the Faith and Peace of the Saints. Sugar coating evil only makes it more acceptable to swallow.

I don't think all of the people who look a the Restoration critically are trying to destroy the Faith and Peace of the Saints. Harold Bloom and Jan Shipps come to mind. But there are plenty of anti-Mormons out there

And people who are extremely critical while still in the church or those member and non-member alike who are questioning perceived difficulties to the nth degree will continue to be offended and sent further from the gospel when they are stereotyped into a category that by definition means they are completely against the church.... agency is such a tricky thing.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

What is the problem with ad hominem?

Shuts down discourse.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I rarely use the term anti-Mormon unless it is obvious that the person I am addressing is seriously opposed to Mormonism.

I just read a thread (or post within) that said we are like the "KKK"; that would qualify.

[KevinG]

And people who are extremely critical while still in the church or those member and non-member alike who are questioning perceived difficulties to the nth degree will continue to be offended and sent further from the gospel when they are stereotyped into a category that by definition means they are completely against the church.... agency is such a tricky thing.

I understand we shouldn't go out of our way to offend those who are questioning. That is why I don't call troll when encountering the same questions for the 100th time. To some it is the first time they asked the question.

However, the Saints have a right to defend themselves against the charges of the perpetually offended and offensive. Bullies are usually the first to cry foul.

[CASteinman]

Shuts down discourse.

It does not have to. That's a choice. Often there is nothing to discourse about and that can cut to the chase. More importantly though, ad hominem is sometimes valid. The person can be a problem.

[CASteinman]

And people who are extremely critical while still in the church or those member and non-member alike who are questioning perceived difficulties to the nth degree will continue to be offended and sent further from the gospel when they are stereotyped into a category that by definition means they are completely against the church.... agency is such a tricky thing.

If they are seeking to destroy the Peace and Faith of the Saints then they are Anti-Mormon. They should not be in the Church. Let them leave. Force them to leave if they will not go on their own. Wolves in Sheeps clothing should not be respected.

I am not talking about someone who has doubts and questions.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

It does not have to. That's a choice. Often there is nothing to discourse about and that can cut to the chase. More importantly though, ad hominem is sometimes valid. The person can be a problem.

It is seen as in polite and people just shut down. I am very good at it, but I don't want to be...I want to be Christlike, although at times he would 'cut to the chase" as you call it. But I am not him. Shades has no standards in this respect so he allows some very bad behavior. Edited May 15, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[thesometimesaint]

It does not have to. That's a choice. Often there is nothing to discourse about and that can cut to the chase. More importantly though, ad hominem is sometimes valid. The person can be a problem.

It nearly always does.

We're always responsible for our choices.

Cutting to the chase isn't discourse, but is often used to limit it.

Sometimes as in rarely. IE; Unless we're talking about a person of a certain WW2 German political party it is a discourse killer to refer to someone as a NAZI.

Can be. However if we're respectful of the rights of others. It seldom is.

[KevinG]

On the bright side it usually only takes about 5 minutes of discussion or 5 board posts to determine where someone is really coming from (doubt, faith or opposition).

Some people are really good at trolling or really bad a dialogue and it takes a little longer to get a bead on them, but most people have tells.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On the bright side it usually only takes about 5 minutes of discussion or 5 board posts to determine where someone is really coming from (doubt, faith or opposition).

Some people are really good at trolling or really bad a dialogue and it takes a little longer to get a bead on them, but most people have tells.

You've found me out...

[KevinG]

You've found me out...

Edited May 15, 2012 by KevinG

[DBMormon]

If they are seeking to destroy the Peace and Faith of the Saints then they are Anti-Mormon. They should not be in the Church. Let them leave. Force them to leave if they will not go on their own. Wolves in Sheeps clothing should not be respected.

WOW.... your didn't just say that? Who determines the line? you?

Elder Holland says the following "

I think you'd be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we're not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. ... We would say: "This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I'm going forward. If I can help you work toward that I'd be glad to, but I don't love you less; I don't distance you more; I don't say you're unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can't make that step or move to the beat of that drum." ... We really don't want to sound smug. We don't want to seem uncompromising and insensitive.

... There are some things we can't give away. There are some foundational stones. If you don't have those, you don't have anything. So the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, those are pretty basic things. ..."

We ought to be very careful that we are not determining this line and offending others when it seems the Lord's apostle would prefer to allow a ton of flexibility.

Yes when one wants to remain LDS yet no longer believe and stand openly in opposition they will likely be dealt with by their bishops or those higher in the church. But the last thing would be for me as a lay member to pass judgement that isn't mine in an act of authority that I don't have and offend someone and determine they are best out of the church anyway and if they won't go let's grab our pitchforks and force them out.

Edited May 15, 2012 by reelmormon

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Wish my hair was that thick...it is thinning on top, but a lot of that is wearing a hard had all the time, and teaching by night. especially in bad lighting at night.

[Calm]

Wish my hair was that thick...it is thinning on top, but a lot of that is wearing a hard had all the time, and teaching by night. especially in bad lighting at night.

I used to babysit a kid who looked so like a little troll doll, he was so dang cute (as in about 20 years ago). I am only hoping that he thinks that is funny because I said it in front of his sister the other day in fond memory and she said she was going to pass it on!

He didn't have purple hair though.