Anti-Mormon Vs Not Christian - Labels

[Avatar4321]

My experience is that it's not the labels being used that are the problem. It's the labels being used accurately when people want to hide that's the problem.

[mormonnewb]

I think the amount of changes desired makes a difference. Changing a program to make it more effective, changing a policy to make it more consistent or understandable...a few changes here and there is significantly different than consistently pushing for a number of changes.

So what is the right number or degree of change that pushes someone over into the anti-Church camp? Is a doctrinal change worth double the apostate points as say a policy change? Can that ratio be adjusted downward if you avoid using imperatives in your group name?

On second thought, I'd be WAY over the line under any measurement system, even if they let me set the scale. Of course, I would never even dream of setting a scale because I was always taught that a healthy body consists of many DIFFERENT kinds of cells, including those that don't subscribe to the 13th Article of Faith.

Take, for example, the white blood cell. It does not view ANYTHING from the lens of what is kind, lovely and of good report. It has one thought and one thought alone, "Should I attack?" And it doesn't give others the benefit of the doubt. If it sees anything that MIGHT be wrong, it attacks first and asks questions later.

And that means sometimes it attacks the body itself. Yet, the other organs don't run around calling the white blood cells "anti-humans." Not do they accuse them of trying to destroy the body. And certainly, none of us would go to a doctor to get out white blood cells "ex-communicated." We understand that to be healthy, we NEED contentious and cantankerous cells.

Now, Paul might appear to disagree with me, but his arguments for unity were actually calls for everyone to follow HIS lead. When someone disagreed with him, he was more of a white blood cell than I could ever be. This point will be proven in the very first reply that uses Paul to condemn me as a heretic.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Take, for example, the white blood cell ... the other organs don't run around calling the white blood cells "anti-humans." Not do they accuse them of trying to destroy the body. And certainly, none of us would go to a doctor to get out white blood cells "ex-communicated." We understand that to be healthy, we NEED contentious and cantankerous cells.

 

And yet we have a sister in our ward who has an auto-immune disease, and her white blood cells have crossed a line and are indeed killing her.

 

Though, to their credit, they began the process by merely attacking her eyes and blinding her first.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

[mormonnewb]

And yet we have a sister in our ward who has an auto-immune disease, and her white blood cells have crossed a line and are indeed killing her.

 

I acknowledge that there is a danger in too many white blood cells. In fact, if there was anyone else like me in my ward, I'd run screaming from this Church. Yet, in our church, I really don't think that we have a "high" white blood cell count.

Edited October 17, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Hamba Tuhan]

Yet, in our church, I really don't think that we have a "high" white blood cell count.

 

No, thankfully. And so the real risk -- and to me the real tragedy -- is that in the case of the Church, the few white blood cells that genuinely seek to destroy their host body end up primarily destroying themselves (and possibly a few neighbouring cells).

Edited October 17, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

[mormonnewb]

No, thankfully. And so the real risk -- and to me the real tragedy -- is that in the case of the Church, the few white blood cells that genuinely seek to destroy their host body end up primarily destroying themselves (and possibly a few neighbouring cells).

 

Just so you know, white blood cells are NEVER seeking to destroy the host body.  That is suicide.  They sometimes mistake useful cells and organs for foreign bodies, but it is NEVER their intention to do harm to THEIR host.

[Pahoran]

So what is the right number or degree of change that pushes someone over into the anti-Church camp? Is a doctrinal change worth double the apostate points as say a policy change? Can that ratio be adjusted downward if you avoid using imperatives in your group name?

On second thought, I'd be WAY over the line under any measurement system, even if they let me set the scale. Of course, I would never even dream of setting a scale because I was always taught that a healthy body consists of many DIFFERENT kinds of cells, including those that don't subscribe to the 13th Article of Faith.

Take, for example, the white blood cell. It does not view ANYTHING from the lens of what is kind, lovely and of good report. It has one thought and one thought alone, "Should I attack?" And it doesn't give others the benefit of the doubt. If it sees anything that MIGHT be wrong, it attacks first and asks questions later.

And that means sometimes it attacks the body itself. Yet, the other organs don't run around calling the white blood cells "anti-humans." Not do they accuse them of trying to destroy the body. And certainly, none of us would go to a doctor to get out white blood cells "ex-communicated." We understand that to be healthy, we NEED contentious and cantankerous cells.

Now, Paul might appear to disagree with me, but his arguments for unity were actually calls for everyone to follow HIS lead. When someone disagreed with him, he was more of a white blood cell than I could ever be. This point will be proven in the very first reply that uses Paul to condemn me as a heretic.

 

 

And the Lord called his people ZION because they were of one heart, and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there were no poor among them.

 

One heart.  One mind.

 

And using the analogy of the body, the white blood cells wouldn't be the ark-steadiers; they're more in line with the toenails that think they're smarter than the brain.  The leucocytes would be those pesky "apologists" who have the temerity to say tactless (but true) things like, "That is a foreign cell that is masquerading as a body cell."

 

Mind you, all analogies are imperfect.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[mormonnewb]

And the Lord called his people ZION because they were of one heart, and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there were no poor among them.

One heart. One mind.

And using the analogy of the body, the white blood cells wouldn't be the ark-steadiers; they're more in line with the toenails that think they're smarter than the brain. The leucocytes would be those pesky "apologists" who have the temerity to say tactless (but true) things like, "That is a foreign cell that is masquerading as a body cell."

Mind you, all analogies are imperfect.

Regards,

Pahoran

The apologist white blood cells are fine so long as the foreign body is small and insignificant. However, it would be useless against a much larger element (say a leader higher up on the food chain). In that case, the apologist would bend over backward trying to "sustain" it.

So in a case of a rapidly growing tumor on a vital organ, the apologist white blood cell would reason that "This is the Lord's body and if He didn't want a tumor in its lungs, He would remove it." And this assumes that he would even notice it in the first place. He's more likely be focused on the heart, brain and kidneys, which are currently working well (why all this focus on the negative?).

[Pahoran]

The apologist white blood cells are fine so long as the foreign body is small and insignificant. However, it would be useless against a much larger element (say a leader higher up on the food chain). In that case, the apologist would bend over backward trying to "sustain" it.

There is no argument to be made from the unfulfilled condition. Which means that you are fully entitled to your opinion about what an apologist "would" do "if" some vague hypothetical were to appear, but that opinion does not support any conclusions.

But I admit that I find it puzzling that an ostensibly believing Latter-day Saint would think the concept of sustaining the Lord's servants is one that attracts mocking scare quotes. Can you explain that to me?

 

So in a case of a rapidly growing tumor on a vital organ, the apologist white blood cell would reason that "This is the Lord's body and if He didn't want a tumor in its lungs, He would remove it." And this assumes that he would even notice it in the first place. He's more likely be focused on the heart, brain and kidneys, which are currently working well (why all this focus on the negative?).

I'm not focusing on the negative.

But here's a news flash for you, Newb: whatever other kinds of bodies do, a healthy Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consists entirely of cells that either subscribe to the 13th Article of Faith, or haven't yet heard about it, but will subscribe to it once they do.

Entirely.

 

Which is another way of saying that we're all still works in progress.  But if we insist that our culturally conditioned preconceptions -- including, but not limited to, those nurtured in the suffocating cradle of "progressivism" -- are definitive of what is true and right and good, then we are limiting our ability to learn from the truths that have come down from heaven.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mormonnewb]

There is no argument to be made from the unfulfilled condition. Which means that you are fully entitled to your opinion about what an apologist "would" do "if" some vague hypothetical were to appear, but that opinion does not support any conclusions.

But I admit that I find it puzzling that an ostensibly believing Latter-day Saint would think the concept of sustaining the Lord's servants is one that attracts mocking scare quotes. Can you explain that to me?

I'm not focusing on the negative.

But here's a news flash for you, Newb: whatever other kinds of bodies do, a healthy Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consists entirely of cells that either subscribe to the 13th Article of Faith, or haven't yet heard about it, but will subscribe to it once they do.

Entirely.

Which is another way of saying that we're all still works in progress. But if we insist that our culturally conditioned preconceptions -- including, but not limited to, those nurtured in the suffocating cradle of "progressivism" -- are definitive of what is true and right and good, then we are limiting our ability to learn from the truths that have come down from heaven.

Regards,

Pahoran

And you think that the Church's principles aren't based on "culturally conditioned preconceptions"? Really?

Tell me where in the NT, Jesus talks about the values of "self-reliance," "political freedom" or button-down white shirts?

EVERY institution is the result of cultural conditioned preconceptions. The only question is WHICH culture and what time?

And the fact that the Church's CCPs are always 20 years behind the current CCPs doesn't make the best case for their superiority.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Just so you know, white blood cells are NEVER seeking to destroy the host body.  That is suicide.  They sometimes mistake useful cells and organs for foreign bodies, but it is NEVER their intention to do harm to THEIR host.

 

I think you may be confusing intentions with actual outcomes. Left unchallenged, the white blood cells in the body of my ward family member would indeed destroy their host and by so doing essentially commit suicide.

 

The Church body, of course, is far more robust than this sister's mortal frame -- and in these last days carries with it an assurance from its Creator and Head that it will survive attacks external or internal. I therefore harbour no concern for the Church. The only question then becomes what happens to its attackers, and that's where I personally feel the loss. Because whilst there's usually no point to crying over small amounts of spilt blood, people aren't blood cells -- red or white.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

[Tacenda]

Just so you know, white blood cells are NEVER seeking to destroy the host body. That is suicide. They sometimes mistake useful cells and organs for foreign bodies, but it is NEVER their intention to do harm to THEIR host.

I feel like I'm watching a Sci-Fi.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

And the Lord called his people ZION because they were of one heart, and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there were no poor among them.

 

One heart.  One mind.

This is a popular and oft quoted scripture but I'm wondering how we square the teachings of unity and oneness with comments from current leaders.

 

 

Uchtdorf- 4 Titles (April 2013)-“But while the Atonement is meant to help us all become more like Christ, it is not meant to make us all the same. Sometimes we confuse differences in personality with sin. We can even make the mistake of thinking that because someone is different from us, it must mean they are not pleasing to God. This line of thinking leads us to believe that the Church wants to create every member from a single mold–that each one should look, feel, think, and behave like every other. This would contradict the genius of God.”

[stemelbow]

Different thinking people can be united, I say. Perhaps even united as God and Jesus are united. THat's my take.

With that said, one item of concern I have that relates to all of this more than others is the culture of wanting to call out and find the wolves among us. All too often it seem to me, people are sitting in our classes and pews hoping to hear something indicting another. Its cute, but I simply don't think we've attained the perspective of knowing whether someone is simply mistaken, has a good point to consider or is someone trying to mislead us all.

[EllenMaksoud]

As I read through the many threads here wherein, on one hand, we LDS are defending ourselves as Christians while on the other hand we are defining others, even those claiming to be LDS, as "Anti-Mormon", I get a sense that some of us want it both ways. Why should we be able to claim the right to define ourselves as Christians and at the same time insist that those who do not agree with our personal definition of what constitutes a Mormon are "Anti-Mormon"?

 

I believe that if we insist on the right to includes ourselves as Christians (rightly so IMO) we should also allow our fellow LDS members the right to define themselves as Mormons even though we do not agree with them as to what defines Mormonism. Furthermore I believe the term "Anti-Mormon does not merely apply to anyone who disagrees with someone else personal definition of Mormonism, but should only be used when it is clear that those so labeled are only interested in the total destruction of the LDS Church.

I have sort of seen what you are talking about, and I think it has moderated somewhat in the time that I have been with the Mormons. It is surprising to me that with the number of our children that we send abroad every year, that American mormons do not seem to have broader cultural ideas. Though I have been bapized, I don't know if I "feel" Mormon. International expression of compassion is more important to me. After the ruction with the Temple Recommend, I have moved on rather than be hurt and bitter.

 

No there will be no angry, blasphemous Anti-Mormon Videos, because Mormons are rather nice people, so I go to church with them. Some of it goes round the bend for me, but since I will never be part of it, it does not matter.

 

God is the only one I seek approval from, and denominational boundaries just seem foolish to me now. Volunteering at Bishops Warehouse, Tutoring Saudi students in English, Volunteering to build Computers out of scrap parts to give to the poor, and anything else that there is the strength for are more important.

 

Perhaps some of us try to keep too fine an eye on things. The nerve of Jesus Christ eating with the wicked tax collectors, and the wine bibers  (Just don't start with me on the water/wine thing).