Law22 Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 Ah yes, the old "The apologists are the most effective anti-Mormons" canard.It is an exclusively anti-Mormon meme.Regards,PahoranOk I gotta be honest, didn't understand this at all.
Law22 Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 With all due respect, if you do not quote me properly I will not accept responsibility for the words. So silly...Oh come on! After I went to all that trouble to delete the rest of the stuff you listed? Anyway, can you show me where I've misquoted you please?
CASteinman Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 Ok I gotta be honest, didn't understand this at all. Do you understand though, that it is not honest to misquote people?
Law22 Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 Do you understand though, that it is not honest to misquote people?An anti-Mormon is anyone (member or not) who regularly, consistently, repeatedly or often:criticizesattacksmalignsslanderscalls into question orspeaks evilof:the ProphetsApostlesGeneral Authoritiesmembersorganizationdoctrinesbeliefspracticespriesthood authorityhistoryactivitiesand/or existenceof the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- especially for any of these purposes:causing doubt or fear in the minds or hearts of members & subsequent questioning their faithreducing commitment of members in sacrifice and tithing and other membership obligationscausing or encouraging non-members to have bad or negative feelings toward the Churchreducing the number of baptisms to the Churchdiminishing the influence of the Church in the world or to embarrass it before the worldand/or "exposing the lies" -- or other such words (as some might put it).Ok, where did I get it wrong?
CASteinman Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 An anti-Mormon is anyone (member or not) who regularly, consistently, repeatedly or often:criticizesattacksmalignsslanderscalls into question orspeaks evilof:the ProphetsApostlesGeneral Authoritiesmembersorganizationdoctrinesbeliefspracticespriesthood authorityhistoryactivitiesand/or existenceof the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- especially for any of these purposes:causing doubt or fear in the minds or hearts of members & subsequent questioning their faithreducing commitment of members in sacrifice and tithing and other membership obligationscausing or encouraging non-members to have bad or negative feelings toward the Churchreducing the number of baptisms to the Churchdiminishing the influence of the Church in the world or to embarrass it before the worldand/or "exposing the lies" -- or other such words (as some might put it).Ok, where did I get it wrong?You bolded part of it inappropriately.
Pahoran Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 Ok I gotta be honest, didn't understand this at all. Okay, I'll try again.It is a popular anti-Mormon claim, and one that is endlessly recycled, that the apologists/missionaries/General Authorities/Scriptures drive more people away from the Church than all the Ed Deckers, Walter Martins, Westboro Baptists and IRR's combined. Your post, #23 in this thread, looked like yet another variation on that theme.Did I possibly misread what you were saying?Regards,Pahoran
CASteinman Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 Ok then. Sorry. Then I forgive you completely and suggest that if you really feel the need to emphasize something in the quote --- take every instance of the words "and", "or" "and/or" and "especially for any of these purposes:" and bold those. Then you will have something approximating a reasonable emphasis.So.. is your issue now resolved?
Law22 Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 Okay, I'll try again.It is a popular anti-Mormon claim, and one that is endlessly recycled, that the apologists/missionaries/General Authorities/Scriptures drive more people away from the Church than all the Ed Deckers, Walter Martins, Westboro Baptists and IRR's combined. Your post, #23 in this thread, looked like yet another variation on that theme.Did I possibly misread what you were saying?Regards,PahoranWell, first of all, I don't know who any of those people are. What I was trying to say was that if we are to label people "Anti-Mormon" merely for calling into question the beliefs of the LDS church, then the church cannot very well send people out to try to convert others to Mormonism because in so doing the missionary necessarily calls into question the potential convert's beliefs. And, if this is truly an apologetics website, that is, a place where members of the LDS church can defend their faith, then to prohibit non-Mormons who visit from calling into question the beliefs of the LDS church by labeling them anti-Mormon would defeat the purpose of the site. 1
CASteinman Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 What I was trying to say was that if we are to label people "Anti-Mormon" merely for calling into question the beliefs of the LDS church, then the church cannot very well send people out to try to convert others to MormonismWell then it is good that no one here suggested that, isn't it? Why do you even bring it up?And, if this is truly an apologetics website, As I understand it, this is not an apologetics website.
Law22 Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 Then I forgive you completely and suggest that if you really feel the need to emphasize something in the quote --- take every instance of the words "and", "or" "and/or" and "especially for any of these purposes:" and bold those. Then you will have something approximating a reasonable emphasis.So.. is your issue now resolved?I'm not sure. Even if I were to have bolded "[especially for the purpose of] causing doubt or fear in the minds or hearts of members & subsequent questioning their faith," I still think that that is pretty much what LDS missionaries do when attempting to convert others from another faith. I am in no way saying this is wrong btw, I'm simply saying it's the same thing.
Law22 Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 As I understand it, this is not an apologetics website.If not, then I have COMPLETELY misunderstood its purpose. Please accept my apologies. (btw, I found this site by googling "Mormon apologetics message board")
Yirgacheffe Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 Well then it is good that no one here suggested that, isn't it? Why do you even bring it up?As I understand it, this is not an apologetics website.Until recently it had the word apologetics in the title, it was Mormon Apologetics & Discussion IIRC.
CASteinman Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 Until recently it had the word apologetics in the title, it was Mormon Apologetics & Discussion IIRC.How recently is that?
CASteinman Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 I'm not sure. Even if I were to have bolded "[especially for the purpose of] causing doubt or fear in the minds or hearts of members & subsequent questioning their faith," I still think that that is pretty much what LDS missionaries do when attempting to convert others from another faith. I am in no way saying this is wrong btw, I'm simply saying it's the same thing.Well, if a Mormon Missionary does that, I believe that they are not working correctly. I was never taught to do that. I was taught to respect other beliefs and not disrespect them or in any way castigate them. I almost never have observed it personally -- but to the extent it happens, it would not be correct. The mission is not to tear down the faith of others but to proclaim the Gospel, baptizing those that believe. And that is definitely not the same thing.
blackstrap Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 It has been what,about a year? I suspect the real reason was the label ...MADboard that broke the camel's back.
Messenger Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 Level of hatred and/or animosity. A lot of people use 'hatred and/or animosity', that are in the church even to their fellow priesthood holders. I would say that those that truly understand love and forgiveness, instead of accusations and shadows, have a pretty keen understanding of Jesus Christ. What better exemplifies Christ, than the book of Mormon? Those that follow it, and understand it, can even accept Samuel the Laminate - Christ did.
Yirgacheffe Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 How recently is that?Within the last 6 months? I don't seem to track the passage of time very well, this causes trouble in many aspects of my life
blackstrap Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) Maybe we can start a new terminology .... mormonphobe Edited May 23, 2012 by blackstrap
Pahoran Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 Well, first of all, I don't know who any of those people are. What I was trying to say was that if we are to label people "Anti-Mormon" merely for calling into question the beliefs of the LDS church, then the church cannot very well send people out to try to convert others to Mormonism because in so doing the missionary necessarily calls into question the potential convert's beliefs.This is another popular anti-Mormon canard. You're comparing apples and onions. LDS missionaries do not oppose any other churches or contend against them. Inter alia, they do not try to convince Catholics that they are not really Christians. They do not accuse Methodists of being part of a conspiracy to take over any government. They don't dwell on the racism of past Baptist leaders, nor obsess about massacres perpetrated by Calvinists.The activities of LDS missionaries are in nowise comparable to those of anti-Mormons. To the extent that a tiny minority of missionaries have been disrespectful to the religious traditions of the people among whom they serve, they have been acting directly contrary to Church standards of behaviour.And, if this is truly an apologetics website, that is, a place where members of the LDS church can defend their faith, then to prohibit non-Mormons who visit from calling into question the beliefs of the LDS church by labeling them anti-Mormon would defeat the purpose of the site.It isn't an apologetics website, and hasn't been for some time. But identifying anti-Mormons as anti-Mormons in nowise prohibits them from doing what they do; it simply gives things their right name.Regards,Pahoran
CASteinman Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 Maybe we can start a new terminology .... mormonphobeIf I thought that they uniformly had a subjective sense of fear of us, I would consider that possibly fair, but maybe provocative. I think anti-Mormon is apt and a word that has existed for so long now and associated with the anti-Mormon behavior, that I don't believe the people who are supposedly offended by it. I think that they are foolin'.
Yirgacheffe Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 Well, if a Mormon Missionary does that, I believe that they are not working correctly. I was never taught to do that. I was taught to respect other beliefs and not disrespect them or in any way castigate them. I almost never have observed it personally -- but to the extent it happens, it would not be correct. The mission is not to tear down the faith of others but to proclaim the Gospel, baptizing those that believe. And that is definitely not the same thing.Missionaries certain call into question the beliefs of others. If they don't question their beliefs there is no reason to accept LDS beliefs or even listen to the missionaries in the first place. I can't see how calling into question LDS beliefs equates with "anti-Mormonism" by itself. If the calling into questions is presented with derision and belittling of the the beliefs and believer then yes I can see it as "anti-Mormonism".
Pahoran Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 Missionaries certain call into question the beliefs of others. If they don't question their beliefs there is no reason to accept LDS beliefs or even listen to the missionaries in the first place. I can't see how calling into question LDS beliefs equates with "anti-Mormonism" by itself. If the calling into questions is presented with derision and belittling of the the beliefs and believer then yes I can see it as "anti-Mormonism".You're being pedantic. It's true that discussing the diameter of the globe necessarily "calls into question" the assumptions of the flat earthers, but no reasonable person would call normal geography "anti-flat earth." Likewise, proclaiming the Restoration of the Gospel necessarily "calls into question" any belief that relies upon the assumption that the Gospel has remained on earth, in its pristine, original form, since the time of Christ, but no reasonable person calls LDS missionary work "anti-Protestant" or "anti-Catholic." As I've already pointed out "anti" simply means "opposed to," and our missionaries don't "oppose" anyone. That's not their calling.Regards,Pahoran 1
Yirgacheffe Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 You're being pedantic. It's true that discussing the diameter of the globe necessarily "calls into question" the assumptions of the flat earthers, but no reasonable person would call normal geography "anti-flat earth." Likewise, proclaiming the Restoration of the Gospel necessarily "calls into question" any belief that relies upon the assumption that the Gospel has remained on earth, in its pristine, original form, since the time of Christ, but no reasonable person calls LDS missionary work "anti-Protestant" or "anti-Catholic." As I've already pointed out "anti" simply means "opposed to," and our missionaries don't "oppose" anyone. That's not their calling.Regards,PahoranYes, which is why I said "calling into question beliefs" doesn't qualify as anti-Mormonism. LDS presenting the case for the restoration is say no more anti-Catholic than a Catholic presenting the case for the Pope being "Successor Of St. Peter, Prince Of The Apostles" is anti-Mormon.
Recommended Posts