Anti-Mormon

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Volume has little to no correlation to weight.

Statements like this remind me why I am known as an Anti-mormon.

Why?  Because you disagree with TSS?  

If I had a two containers that were each 1 cubic foot, and I filled one with solid, molten gold, and the other with variously sized nuggets of gold, they would not weigh the same.

The plates were metal pounded into thin sheets and stacked.  How thin were they?  How flat were they pounded?  How many pages did they have?  We don't know, you don't know, and nobody knows.  It is virtually impossible to make a decent calculation of how much the plates weighed when most of the important factors are unknown.  We can make reasonable guesses, but that's about it.

Another matter which has been brought up is that the gold of the plates need not and probably were not pure gold, but gold alloyed with another metal, probably copper, to enhance the strength of the material.  This would also factor in to the weight of the plates.

 

 

[why me]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

These did not include the details regarding polygamy that are now published by the church.  That is the difference.

Not that many years ago, if you  stated that Joseph married a 14 year old and other teenagers, the response would immediately be, "that's an anti-Mormon lie" (or something similar).  Now, those facts are written and published on lds. org.   Were those details mentioned in "the Ensign back in the 70s"?  

 

Arirngton mentions that joseph could have had 48 wives. Of course he was wrong. But much is said about joseph and polygamy. It is up to historians to write history or scholars. I wish more nonlids scholars would write on lds history. This is what the lds church needs. The catholics and protestants have many scholars and academics writing on their christian history. How else would catholics or protestants find out about their history?

http://www.amazon.com/The-Mormon-Experience-HISTORY-LATTER-DAY/dp/0252062361

http://crab.rutgers.edu/~banner/arrington.html

The ensign did mention that one of his plural wives was livng with joseph and emma.

 

 

Edited April 11, 2016 by why me

[why me]

2 hours ago, canard78 said:

True. But few that I know of have been banned from the forum. Lots of "anti-Mormons" have.

A lot of us were placed on limited. In fact, I do believe that we had more defenders on limited than critics. And then we were pardoned. Now I am on my best behavior and even during my bad days, I hold it in and take a deep breath.

[salgare]

3 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think that what you are saying has some merit. Arminians and Calvinists do this to each other all the time. From the responses here, I am thinking that this is not the predominant way this term is used.

I suppose it is likely the same in most any forum.  As things become more heated, things tend to fall apart to the point of total collapse ("you anti", "you cult" as consig pointed out)).  There are also those regulars who still insist on going there immediately.  There are examples in this very thread.

There is some thin line somewhere between critic and anti and IMO there is a bit of a different dynamic between the apologist and the critic.  Now I emphasis this is my opinion, and it is very stereotypical,  but I would say there is a tendency of the apologist to view the critic as the enemy, an us verses them attitude, where even an enemy of my enemy is my friend type deal when it comes to diversity in this board itself.  I would also suggest that the stereotypical critic does not view the Church and especially the member in this way.

That last sentence is important.  Most Mormon critics and anti's that are or have been Mormon still have immediate and extended families who remain TBM.  They do not view their loved ones as the enemy.  Extending this out, one must ask what is the "Church"  you will note in this thread that most statements are focused on the Church.  IMO the typical apologist views the anti- as an individual attacking "The Church", as in the ecclesiastical/administrative organizational branch as well as the Physical organizational branch of the organization.  There is little more that will bring down the wrath of the apologist than to refer the "The Church" as LDS.inc.  Mormons (all three of my categories) very tightly couple their individual identity to the Church to an extreme extent, such that even minor criticisms of the Church are taken as serious personal insults.  This is ingrained in individuals from very early ages , in a repetitive cadence for the rest of their lives.

Now for a quick story to show how strong the indoctrination is of which I spoke in my first post in this thread.  Elsewhere I recently gave a brief history of the "Cultural Mormon" sub division of New Order Mormons which evolved over time.  When I became inactive 14 years ago, I considered myself an apostate, so did my loving wife of 35 years.  As this Cultural Mormon thing started to take off, I felt some of the shame of apostasy fall off and with excitement and pride proclaimed to my wife "I'm a Mormon!", with out skipping a beat, no time for thought the automatic response with a striking blow - "No you're not you are an Anti-Mormon".  Upon her brain catching up with her words, the blush come over her face, realizing that just was not fair or accurate.  

 

[cdowis]

8 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

What I'm trying to clarify for myself here is if Latter-day Saints generally see Ed Decker or Richard Abanes 

Ed Decker is not an antiMormon.  His end game has been adequately  described in the scriptures.  

As for Abanes, he accepted an invitation to participate here in this forum years ago.  While we very much disagreed with him, and frustrated with his obstinance  at least he admitted some of his mistakes, and corrected himself.  I remember suggesting that he publish a weekly newsletter showing the corrections to his book as we pointed them out to him.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Ed Decker is not an antiMormon.  His end game has been adequately  described in the scriptures.  

As for Abanes, he accepted an invitation to participate here in this forum years ago.  While we very much disagreed with him, and frustrated with his obstinance  at least he admitted some of his mistakes, and corrected himself.  I remember suggesting that he publish a weekly newsletter showing the corrections to his book as we pointed them out to him.

I'm sure that went over well -- like the proverbial t--- in a punch bowl!

 

[UtahTexan]

As a former anti-Mormon, let me add my two cents.

One can disagree...or even not believe, in the doctrines of the LDS Church....

But the minute you start posting against the Church and/or the Doctrines...even when couched as innocuous requests for info, you are anti-Mormon.  It is dependent on what is in your heart...plain and simple.

 

[USU78]

14 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Ed Decker is not an antiMormon.  His end game has been adequately  described in the scriptures.  

As for Abanes, he accepted an invitation to participate here in this forum years ago.  While we very much disagreed with him, and frustrated with his obstinance  at least he admitted some of his mistakes, and corrected himself.  I remember suggesting that he publish a weekly newsletter showing the corrections to his book as we pointed them out to him.

I remember it differently, and found him a disingenuous prig.

You are far kinder than I, CD.

[boblloyd91]

24 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Ed Decker is not an antiMormon.  His end game has been adequately  described in the scriptures.  

As for Abanes, he accepted an invitation to participate here in this forum years ago.  While we very much disagreed with him, and frustrated with his obstinance  at least he admitted some of his mistakes, and corrected himself.  I remember suggesting that he publish a weekly newsletter showing the corrections to his book as we pointed them out to him.

How on earth is Decker not an Anti Mormon?

[Russell C McGregor]

5 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

I was mostly talking about Fawn Brodie's book.  But there is a practice in the LDS church of hiding certain doctrines and past practices from new converts and outsiders.

The cartoon from Ed Decker's first movie has been described as Anti-mormon propaganda by some Mormons, but is essentially the truth.

No, it is essentially a very deliberate tabloidesque distortion and misrepresentation.

It is also soft porn.

It is a vile piece of Dreck that was denounced by the Anti-Defamation League (because it is, after all, defamatory.)

And there is no question that the whole nasty flick is anti-Mormon hate propaganda. The only people who would deny that are those who rely upon it.

5 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

Heck, Gordon Hinckley told a fib about the Lorenzo Snow couplet on national television.

No. He did not.

OTOH, I have recently seen a "fib" in this very forum, where a certain anti-Mormon (who shall remain nameless) tried to drag up the discredited old falsehood that Brigham Young ordered the Mountain Meadow Massacre by quoting William Bishop's posthumous reworking of John D. Lee's "confessions."

[ttribe]

10 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I remember it differently, and found him a disingenuous prig.

You are far kinder than I, CD.

+1 He was an arrogant fool, as well.

[Russell C McGregor]

4 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

Example section from that web site:

Pants on fire.

CFR, please.

Kindly document your accusation or else withdraw it.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

4 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/GMErrors.htm

Pants on fire again.

 

 

No, it's telling the truth.

If you think otherwise, kindly provide documentation that the concept of "neutrals" was ever taught by the Church.

[Russell C McGregor]

6 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Believe it or not, there are actually people on this board who consider me an anti-Mormon.

Now where on earth would they get that idea?

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

I remember it differently, and found him a disingenuous prig.

You are far kinder than I, CD.

I was the one who invited him here, and i don't want to be impolite to a guest.  But I really do admire his courage and tenacity, considering he was only the second of two people who were  willing to accept an invitation.

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, boblloyd91 said:

How on earth is Decker not an Anti Mormon?

I notice two things about you.  You are the only one who apparently doesn't know the answer, and you are a fan of comic books.

May I suggest that you trust me when I say that there are some things in this world that you don't want to know.  The world will come crashing in on you soon enough

Edited April 12, 2016 by cdowis

[Steve Noel]

7 hours ago, juliann said:

Absolutely not to your first question. Yes to your second. If you will notice, "critic" is the term of choice now, not anti-Mormon. I have met and talked with Mouw, BTW. He exudes charisma and the spirit of the Lord. I was very drawn to him. We invited Abanes to a FAIR conference and James White was one of the first evangelicals we tangled with online. I found both to be dishonest, meaning, when errors were documented they would not relent in their attacks and continued with the same false information. White at least was very educated in what he was doing. Abanes was shockingly uninformed and untrained. We had a field day just with his inaccurate footnotes.  His name showed up in Cowen's Bearing False Witness?: An Introduction to the Christian Countercult and not in a good way. Do you know what he is up to now?

Thanks for your comments. It seems this is the general viewpoint here. I am not aware of what Richard Abanes is up to.

 

Edited April 12, 2016 by Steve Noel

[Jim Stiles]

6 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

 Links removed. You should know by now that Mormons consider temple content to be sacred. We respect that. If you can't you will not be welcome here.

I did not know that temple content was located at those sites.

[Jim Stiles]

2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

CFR, please.

Kindly document your accusation or else withdraw it.

 

Quote

4. The Mormon "gods" were said to have "worked their way up" to become gods.  This is alien to LDS theology.  While we believe that we are the "offspring of God," (Heb. 12:9, Acts 17:29, Ps.82:6) and "joint heirs with Christ," (Rom.8:17, 1 Jn.3:2, Rev. 3:21) we can no more "work ourselves up" to godhood than a piece of coal can "work itself up" to become a diamond or a caterpillar can "work itself up" to be a butterfly.  In each case the potential is there, but it is God who must work the miracle. He is the only "Godmaker"!

The important issue is not works or grace.  The answer to that question has been documented elsewhere to death.  The important issue is human beings becoming Gods to begin with.  No human being who has ever lived or will ever live will ever become a God.  There is one Triune God.  Even glorified man will never be a God; he will only reflect God's glory.

[ttribe]

57 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Now where on earth would they get that idea?

Because you won't stop saying it?

[RevTestament]

4 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

The important issue is not works or grace.  The answer to that question has been documented elsewhere to death.  The important issue is human beings becoming Gods to begin with.  No human being who has ever lived or will ever live will ever become a God.  

Hmm. Better erase that verse out of your Bible where the man Jesus, will be called the everlasting Father. Isa 9:6.

I'll keep it in mine.

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I recall clearly that Abanes was at the first FairMormon (then called FAIR) conference I ever attended. He queued up to ask a question to one of the speakers in the Q&A time following the talk. The "question" was more of a speech or a criticism. Lou Midgley, who also got in the Q&A line, shot him down for an his assumption.

Did he use a pistol or a shotgun?  LOL.

[cdowis]

23 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

The important issue is not works or grace.  The answer to that question has been documented elsewhere to death.  The important issue is human beings becoming Gods to begin with.  No human being who has ever lived or will ever live will ever become a God.  There is one Triune God.  Even glorified man will never be a God; he will only reflect God's glory.

Christ disagrees with you.

John 17:19-23 (see Rom 8:17)
Revelation 3:21

You  need to understand that we are Bible believing Christians and we accept ALL of the Word of God, including the Bible and modern revelation.
 

PS  You are not an antiMormon but only someone who is ignorant of what the Bible teaches.

Edited April 12, 2016 by cdowis

[Steve Noel]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Richard Abanes didn't care sufficiently whether or not he accurately portrayed LDS belief even while claiming that was his purpose for hanging out with us on message boards.  I had some private conversations with him and he even gave me a couple of books and a cd of his songs (nice voice).  Iirc, he came to a FM conference but that might have been just an expressed desire.  Pretty sure he met with Dan Peterson and had Dan write his testimony in the back of his book (will check to see if my memory is correct on that when I go downstairs).  Overall very nice guy, but imo he preferred to write the book his audience expected rather than the book he should have if he wanted his audience to really know Mormons and how they think.  He was offered extensive corrections by myself and others on how he could make his book more accurate and he did alter some iirc, but left much we disagreed with.  One that sticks in my mind was his insistence on using the term "celestial sex" even after being told no one in the faith uses that term to describe the idea of eternal posterity and it carries both definitions and connotations that are contrary to how LDS view the eternal marriage relationship.  His argument for using it was that was how his audience understood what Mormons believe, which meant to me he didn't care about perpetuating misunderstandings as much as he cared about catching his audience.  And that was a relatively minor problem with his book.  He was a journalist (his own description iirc) who used sensationalism to make for a more interesting but less accurate book.

Blomberg and Mouw otoh are scholars who try, from what I've seen, to get things right.  And while I believe they would like the Church to drop some of their distinctive beliefs, I don't think they view this as fundamentally changing the Church to the point of destroying it even though I view those changes myself that way.

Their approach is fundamentally different in other ways  imo.  In conversations with LDS (as demonstrated for example with the public discussions with Millet) imo they are more focused on teaching what they view as truth of the Gospel than telling us what is wrong with our Church, history, culture and doctrine.  I have had many discussions with antimormons where any of their personal beliefs leak through by accident or they completely avoid talking about their own belef because they are focused solely on telling me what is wrong with mine.  Not a productive way to proselyte the Gospel, so it leads me to believe that is not the actual intent.

I will tend to be more comfortable using the term antimormon for this type rather than someone who is intentionally targeting Mormons in order to destroy their faith in the LDS belief, but doing so through teaching their own beliefs more so than what is wrong with ours because I know there are those who have attached a lot of emotional baggage to the term even I don't have that level.

 

Several have mentioned Richard Abanes posting here. Are these threads in the archives somewhere? I only know of him because One Nation Under Gods was at my local library. I picked up his book Inside Today's Mormonism a few years ago, but I haven't read it.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Steve Noel

[Jim Stiles]

Upon looking at some quotes, I see some say no neutrals, other say possibly neutral.  The important fact is that it was traditionally taught that it was their own fault for being born Negro.  Some people thought they were neutrals, because their leaders felt compelled to teach otherwise.

NO NEUTRALS

Quote

 

Question: Were Negroes neutral in the great war in heaven (Rev.12:7) and therefore denied the Priesthood during mortality?

Answer: No. There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. An individual was either on the side of Christ or the side of Lucifer. John reveals that one-third of the ‘stars of heaven’ or children of God followed Satan and were cast out of heaven. (Rev. 12:4.) The Negroes were not neutral; they were sufficiently valiant to be promised the Priesthood, if worthy, after their mortal existence (John Lewis Lund, The Church and the Negro, 1967, p. 103).

 

Quote

 

NO NEUTRALS IN HEAVEN. There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:65-66).

 

POSSIBLY NEUTRAL

Quote

The negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin. But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fulness of glory in the celestial kingdom. What is the reason for this condition, we ask, and I find it to my satisfaction to think that as spirit children of our Eternal Father they were not valiant in the fight. We are told that Michael and his angels fought, and we understand that we stood with Christ our Lord, on the platform, ‘Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.’I cannot conceive our Father consigning his children to a condition such as that of the negro race, if they had been valiant in the spirit world in that war in heaven. Neither could they have been a part of those who rebelled and were cast down, for the latter had not the privilege of tabernacling in the flesh. Somewhere along the line were these spirits, indifferent perhaps, and possibly neutral in the war. We have no definite knowledge concerning this. (George F. Richards, Conference Reports, April 1939, pp. 58-59).