Anti-Mormon

[boblloyd91]

18 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Please put me on ignore.  I don't want to worry about hurting your feelings.

No need, my feelings are just fine

[boblloyd91]

Steve you may want to check out an article written by Mouw over at the First things blog. It's called Mormonism approaching orthodoxy. Can't do a link on my smartphone but should be easy to find. Not directly related to the discussion but thought you might like it 

[flameburns623]

5 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said:

Steve you may want to check out an article written by Mouw over at the First things blog. It's called Mormonism approaching orthodoxy. Can't do a link on my smartphone but should be easy to find. Not directly related to the discussion but thought you might like it 

I just posted this a couple hours ago on another of Steve's threads but here's the link.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/mormons-approaching-orthodoxy

Edited April 12, 2016 by flameburns623

[cacheman]

18 hours ago, ALarson said:

Hey Scott, I know you were quoting someone else above, but is there a copy somewhere of this letter as I would like to read it?   

Here is what Bob Crockett said:

" I pointed out to him that he was a Huntington Library scholar, and contained within the massacre files there is a letter from John D. Lee's lawyer indicating that the lawyer was going to fictionalize Lee's confession to make it sell better. "

and....

" There is a letter in the massacre files from Lee's attorney to Lee, while Lee is in prison awaiting execution. Lee's confession is attorney Bishop's means of obtaining a fee for Lee's defense. Bishop urges Lee in this letter to implicate Brigham Young in the confessions, and the Bishop says that Bishop is going to add things to Lee's confession to spice things up. "

Here is the portion (with his ellipses) of the letter he quoted:

" As Bishop urged Lee to finish his work before his execution, he told Lee that he would be "adding such facts . . . as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public."

Here is the full letter with the quote in context:

"Dear Sir:
Your kindly worded and lengthy letter of the 15th inst. Recd. I thank you for the same, before I know I have done all I knew how to do for your benefit. I am conscious of tfact that men of greater ability could have been secured to defend you, but I will insist that no man could have been found to would have been more truly devoted to your interests then I have been. I still claim that the law is on our side, that laying aside outside pressure and prejudice I would have been successful - but we may as well look at facts as they are. We have the prejudice of civilization to contend with - the united press of the nation opposed us, and no one was found who would speak a word of kindness in your behalf. Added to this we found the so-called Head of the Church furnishing evidence against you and the members all arrayed as willing tools under the leadership of Genl. Wells. Treachery was added to hatred and the whole people it appeared demanded a victim. Under such circumstances we could only fail in the Territorial courts - I am sorry that you were unable to raise the money to carry the case up to the Supreme Court of the United States before I do think we could have reversed the case in the accord - But it is useless to speak of what might have been - it is existing facts that now demand attention - I do most certainly wish and expect the remainder of your manuscript, and have this a telegraphed to you to send all my express, which I am certain will have been done before you receive this letter. I will at once go to work preparing it for the press adding such facts connected with the trial and the history of the case as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public. I wish you to forward to me your Journals such as you have I will use them & return of them to your family when I am done with them. I do wish you to write up your history fully from the time you came to Salt Lake, until the trial began - giving a full statement of all the fax and doctrines connected with the Reformation and especially give me all the facts that will throw light upon or that were connected with the massacre and the Leading men of Utah as connected with it that he is if you have held anything back. In Justice to your self & to me - as well as your family “tell it all”. I am Sir, Respectfully Yours, Wm. W. Bishop"

Edited April 12, 2016 by cacheman

[Anakin7]

10 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

The phrase "pants on fire" means that the cartoon was accurately depicting human beings becoming gods, just like what LDS theology says that they can become.

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

said the following:

Works salvation is preached everywhere in the LDS faith, even in this forum.  Grace plus works is works salvation.  The web site is criticizing the cartoon for saying that LDS members are told that they can work their way (with grace after all they can do) into the celestial kingdom and become gods.  Yet, this is exactly what my critics here are saying.  Ed Decker calls the LDS church the Godmakers because they have invented a God who is a Godmaker.          

    True LDS Doctrine Salvation/Soteriology Is A True Love/Faith/Covenant/Obedience Form/Model not a self righteous form/model . Try again, read the 2 Nephi 25:23 in context please and try to understand our True position.

Counting The Cost To Follow Him

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7                              

[ALarson]

40 minutes ago, cacheman said:

Here is what Bob Crockett said:

" I pointed out to him that he was a Huntington Library scholar, and contained within the massacre files there is a letter from John D. Lee's lawyer indicating that the lawyer was going to fictionalize Lee's confession to make it sell better. "

and....

" There is a letter in the massacre files from Lee's attorney to Lee, while Lee is in prison awaiting execution. Lee's confession is attorney Bishop's means of obtaining a fee for Lee's defense. Bishop urges Lee in this letter to implicate Brigham Young in the confessions, and the Bishop says that Bishop is going to add things to Lee's confession to spice things up. "

Here is the portion (with his ellipses) of the letter he quoted:

" As Bishop urged Lee to finish his work before his execution, he told Lee that he would be "adding such facts . . . as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public."

Here is the full letter with the quote in context:

"Dear Sir:
Your kindly worded and lengthy letter of the 15th inst. Recd. I thank you for the same, before I know I have done all I knew how to do for your benefit. I am conscious of tfact that men of greater ability could have been secured to defend you, but I will insist that no man could have been found to would have been more truly devoted to your interests then I have been. I still claim that the law is on our side, that laying aside outside pressure and prejudice I would have been successful - but we may as well look at facts as they are. We have the prejudice of civilization to contend with - the united press of the nation opposed us, and no one was found who would speak a word of kindness in your behalf. Added to this we found the so-called Head of the Church furnishing evidence against you and the members all arrayed as willing tools under the leadership of Genl. Wells. Treachery was added to hatred and the whole people it appeared demanded a victim. Under such circumstances we could only fail in the Territorial courts - I am sorry that you were unable to raise the money to carry the case up to the Supreme Court of the United States before I do think we could have reversed the case in the accord - But it is useless to speak of what might have been - it is existing facts that now demand attention - I do most certainly wish and expect the remainder of your manuscript, and have this a telegraphed to you to send all my express, which I am certain will have been done before you receive this letter. I will at once go to work preparing it for the press adding such facts connected with the trial and the history of the case as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public. I wish you to forward to me your Journals such as you have I will use them & return of them to your family when I am done with them. I do wish you to write up your history fully from the time you came to Salt Lake, until the trial began - giving a full statement of all the fax and doctrines connected with the Reformation and especially give me all the facts that will throw light upon or that were connected with the massacre and the Leading men of Utah as connected with it that he is if you have held anything back. In Justice to your self & to me - as well as your family “tell it all”. I am Sir, Respectfully Yours, Wm. W. Bishop"

Thanks for posting this, cacheman!.  

So,the adding "things to spice things up" comes from Bob Crockett, correct (or am I reading that correctly)?  This is not a quote from Bishop (Lee's attorney)?

From what you quoted above, the actual letter states that Bishop will be adding "facts connected with the trial and the history of the case" that will make the book "interesting and useful to the public".  That's quite different.  Adding "facts" is not adding "things to spice things up"....that's quite the spin though!

I've seen Bob do this before although most of his work is quite good.  If he chooses to intrepet what the attorney states in the letter that way, that's up to him, but I think it's a misrepresentation of what is actually stated.  As Lee's attorney, Bishop had every right to add information and facts about the case that he'd witnessed first hand, IMO (and he even informed Lee he planned to do this).

He also asks for "facts" (or "fax") in other parts of the letter, so it seems the truth (as Lee told it and with what he witnessed first hand) was important to him in writing his book.

I see nothing in this letter implicating the attorney regarding his intent to "spice things up".  However, he was dependant upon Lee for the "facts" (other than those from the trial that he was involved in) and that's where one has to judge the reliability of the "facts" provided to Bishop.  I believe we will never know for sure who ordered the massacre (a topic for another thread) and there were so many factors and men involved we may never know.

[I do not want to derail Steve's thread again, so if anyone wants to respond to my response to cacheman, please start a separate thread, thanks.]

 

,

Edited April 12, 2016 by ALarson

[boblloyd91]

43 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

I just posted this a couple hours ago on another of Steve's threads but here's the link.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/mormons-approaching-orthodoxy

Thanks! What did you think about it?

[flameburns623]

10 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said:

Thanks! What did you think about it?

When the RLDS and the Worldwide Church of God each abandoned their distinctives and moved in the direction of Evangelicalism, they imploded. Became shadows of themselves.

The Anglican Church was once the biggest Protestant denomination in the USA. When John A. T.  Robinson blended secular philosophies and modernity with Christian faith, he sparked a cascade of writers and religious leaders who did likewise. Evangelical denominations overtook the Anglicans by the early 1970's, and The Episcopal Church continues a steep decline to this day.

Tampering with things can be a very dicey business.

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

When the RLDS and the Worldwide Church of God each abandoned their distinctives and moved in the direction of Evangelicalism, they imploded. Became shadows of themselves.

The Anglican Church was once the biggest Protestant denomination in the USA. When John A. T.  Robinson blended secular philosophies and modernity with Christian faith, he sparked a cascade of writers and religious leaders who did likewise. Evangelical denominations overtook the Anglicans by the early 1970's, and The Episcopal Church continues a steep decline to this day.

Tampering with things can be a very dicey business.

Should a desire for popularity (ie more bums in the pews) have taken precedence over their beliefs? 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for posting this, cacheman!.  

So,the adding "things to spice things up" comes from Bob Crockett, correct (or am I reading that correctly)?  This is not a quote from Bishop (Lee's attorney)?

From what you quoted above, the actual letter states that Bishop will be adding "facts connected with the trial and the history of the case" that will make the book "interesting and useful to the public".  That's quite different.  Adding "facts" is not adding "things to spice things up"....that's quite the spin though!

I've seen Bob do this before although most of his work is quite good.  If he chooses to intrepet what the attorney states in the letter that way, that's up to him, but I think it's a misrepresentation of what is actually stated.  As Lee's attorney, Bishop had every right to add information and facts about the case that he'd witnessed first hand, IMO (and he even informed Lee he planned to do this).

He also asks for "facts" (or "fax") in other parts of the letter, so it seems the truth (as Lee told it and with what he witnessed first hand) was important to him in writing his book.

I see nothing in this letter implicating the attorney regarding his intent to "spice things up".  However, he was dependant upon Lee for the "facts" (other than those from the trial that he was involved in) and that's where one has to judge the reliability of the "facts" provided to Bishop.  I believe we will never know for sure who ordered the massacre (a topic for another thread) and there were so many factors and men involved we may never know.

[I do not want to derail Steve's thread again, so if anyone wants to respond to my response to cacheman, please start a separate thread, thanks.]

 

,

I'm going to respond here, as you chose to make your post here, and it fairly cries out for a response. If you want to continue the conversation beyond this, you can be the one to make a separate thread.

The bottom-line consideration here is that Lee's memoirs have been tainted by Bishop's meddling and thus have been forever rendered unreliable.

Why didn't Bishop publish Lee's writing as is? Why did he have to add stuff?

An honest man, if he felt the work needed elucidation, would have included commentary under his own authorship, carefully distinguishing it from Lee's own words. Or at the very least, he would have had Lee read the revised version and sign off on it before his death.

And in the day, the public was never told about the tampering. We only know about it now because research a century later has unearthed Bishop's correspondence.

We will probably never know what portions Bishop added, but given the circumstances, we can make an educated guess by asking ourselves this question: What did Bishop need the published work to include in order to make it appealing (and marketable) to a public already enraged against the Mormons by publicity surrounding the massacre? He would need it to include verbiage directly fingering Brigham Young as ordering the massacre. That's the sort of "facts" a hateful readership would have found "useful" -- for the obvious reason that it would have confirmed their prejudice.

Giving credence to this doctored memoir above the clear and convincing direct evidence of Brigham Young's written order to the Iron County settlers not to molest or "meddle with" the wagon train is at the very least unwise. Presenting it as evidence of Brigham Young's culpability without disclosing the fact that Bishop said he was going to tamper with it before publishing it is, at the very least, less than honest.

 

 

Edited April 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Giving credence to this doctored memoir above the clear and convincing direct evidence of Brigham Young's written order to the Iron County settlers not to molest or "meddle with" the wagon train is at the very least unwise. Presenting it as evidence of Brigham Young's culpability without disclosing the fact that Bishop said he was going to tamper with it before publishing it is, at the very least, less than honest.

 

Frankly, even without Bishop's edits, Lee's account at that point in his life is suspect (at best).  He was clearly embittered and claiming that he was a scapegoat; of course his narrative would support that position.  What's the actual truth?  Don't know.  No one really does.  But, the evidence thrown around in an attempt to implicate Brigham Young directly is relatively weak, IMO.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

An honest man, if he felt the work needed elucidation, would have included commentary under his own authorship, carefully distinguishing it from Lee's own words. Or at the very least, he would have had Lee read the revised version and sign off on it before his death.

 

Didn't the same thing happen with the History of the Church though?  Historical practices were different than.

It would have been nice and we need to be cautious but I do not think we need to assume dishonesty unless there is confirming evidence he knew something and intentionally misrepresented it.

[Calm]

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/History_of_the_Church_(History_of_Joseph_Smith)

"Emphasizing the role of God in human affairs, this history falls within the Judeo-Christian tradition of "providential history." Because it was not written in a literary vacuum, it exhibits characteristics and flaws commonly found in the history and biography of its day: unacknowledged ghostwriting, edited sources, and a lack of balance. The most frequent distortion is the changing of an associate's third-person description of Joseph Smith's words and actions to a first-person account attributed to Joseph Smith, thereby conveying a false sense that he wrote it. Nonetheless, resting as it does on extensive documents from the period and compiled by persons who were eyewitnesses to the events, the factual content of the history has proven reliable."

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm going to respond here, as you chose to make your post here, and it fairly cries out for a response. If you want to continue the conversation beyond this, you can be the one to make a separate thread.

The bottom-line consideration here is that Lee's memoirs have been tainted by Bishop's meddling and thus have been forever rendered unreliable.

Why didn't Bishop publish Lee's writing as is? Why did he have to add stuff?

An honest man, if he felt the work needed elucidation, would have included commentary under his own authorship, carefully distinguishing it from Lee's own words. Or at the very least, he would have had Lee read the revised version and sign off on it before his death.

And in the day, the public was never told about the tampering. We only know about it now because research a century later has unearthed Bishop's correspondence.

We will probably never know what portions Bishop added, but given the circumstances, we can make an educated guess by asking ourselves this question: What did Bishop need the published work to include in order to make it appealing (and marketable) to a public already enraged against the Mormons by publicity surrounding the massacre? He would need it to include verbiage directly fingering Brigham Young as ordering the massacre. That's the sort of thing a hateful readership would have found "useful" -- for the obvious reason that it would have confirmed their prejudice.

Giving credence to this doctored memoir above the clear and convincing direct evidence of Brigham Young's written order to the Iron County settlers not to molest or "meddle with" the wagon train is at the very least unwise. Presenting it as evidence of Brigham Young's culpability without disclosing the fact that Bishop said he was going to tamper with it before publishing it is, at the very least, less than honest.

 

 

Also, the different editions of the book show clear indications of Bishop's meddling.

The second edition, as Hugh Nibley demonstrated, has the word "danite" sprinkled through it like cinnamon on toast, where the first hardly mentions danites at all. That, you see, is what Bishop thought "facts" should look like.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

Didn't the same thing happen with the History of the Church though?  Historical practices were different than.

It would have been nice and we need to be cautious but I do not think we need to assume dishonesty unless there is confirming evidence he knew something and intentionally misrepresented it.

There is this from the Introduction to the Joseph Smith Papers:
 

Quote

 

For the first two years after the organization of the Church of Christ on 6 April 1830, Smith assigned the work of keeping a history first to Oliver Cowdery and then to John Whitmer, two of the early believers. In 1832, he himself wrote a history of the visions he had received as a young man and in the same year started a personal journal and began to preserve correspondence and other documents in a letterbook.65 These record-keeping projects soon faltered, however: the history ended after six pages, and the journal keeping lapsed after ten days. Only gradually did Smith establish a pattern of assigning scribes to work on histories, journals, letters, minutes, and other documents. Spotty at first, his record keeping eventually settled into more consistent patterns. By the early 1840s, he and his clerks were composing a comprehensive history, keeping a continuous diary, accumulating minutes from meetings and councils, preserving correspondence, and taking notes of many of his numerous discourses.

Joseph Smith drew upon these materials in 1838, when he again turned his own hand to history. He began by dictating an autobiographical narrative interspersed with revelations, correspondence, and other documents pertaining to his life and the beginnings of the church. When the chronology of the story reached November 1832, the narrative evolved into a day-by-day diary format using Smith’s journals as the featured text, supplemented by additional documentary material. Where the journals were written in third person by Smith’s scribes, the narrative was changed to first person, and where the journal was deficient it was fleshed out from other sources, which were also edited to maintain the first-person style. When Joseph Smith was killed in June 1844, work on the history had proceeded only as far as 5 August 1838, but his secretary and clerks continued to utilize his journal and other available documents to extend the narrative to the end of his life.

 

I do understand it was consistent with standard practices of the day for a clerk or a scribe to keep a journal or diary for a person in the first-person voice with the consent of that person.

That strikes me as different though, from what went on between Lee and his attorney, where the attorney had cart blanche to make up anything he wanted and insert it into the memoirs after Lee's death without Lee signing off on or even reading what Bishop had written.

And I stand by the point I made above:

Quote

The bottom-line consideration here is that Lee's memoirs have been tainted by Bishop's meddling and thus have been forever rendered unreliable.

 

Edited April 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

51 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Also, the different editions of the book show clear indications of Bishop's meddling.

The second edition, as Hugh Nibley demonstrated, has the word "danite" sprinkled through it like cinnamon on toast, where the first hardly mentions danites at all. That, you see, is what Bishop thought "facts" should look like.

 

That's very interesting. I hadn't known that.

Apparently Bishop didn't have high enough regard for the intelligence of his readership to think they might do some comparison and contrast or some critical thinking.

Sort of like the implied readership of the National Enquirer, I suppose.

 

 

Edited April 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[salgare]

6 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

When the RLDS and the Worldwide Church of God each abandoned their distinctives and moved in the direction of Evangelicalism, they imploded. Became shadows of themselves.

The Anglican Church was once the biggest Protestant denomination in the USA. When John A. T.  Robinson blended secular philosophies and modernity with Christian faith, he sparked a cascade of writers and religious leaders who did likewise. Evangelical denominations overtook the Anglicans by the early 1970's, and The Episcopal Church continues a steep decline to this day.

Tampering with things can be a very dicey business.

This is why I have concluded that the “Givens movement” (a term I now suggest to replace the labeling of individuals here and their philosophies which I was calling nuanced), are trying to hide the humanism from being exposed, trying to simply blend into Mormonism without rocking the boat. 

Getting acceptance within the mainstream that there is no doctrine, or orthodoxy only orthopraxy is the key to avoiding “very dicey business”.

Quote by Paul Toscano

“I never argued about their authority I only argued against their competence.  From my perspective I felt they were neglecting, not just cosmetic things they were neglecting the infrastructure upon which the religion rests. And they were taking one of the world’s great religions the last religion to believe in an anthropomorphic God and letting it fade away”.

The six excommunicated were intellectuals (Paul) Gay supporters and Feminist who Boyd K. Packer labeled the enemies of the Church.   Learn about the excommunications of one of the infamous “September Six” (1993 as Mainstreaming was first being advanced) It was an attempt at silencing hard core old school and you will hear a once true believer in Adam-god tell of his beliefs and experiences.

[consiglieri]

 

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Apparently Bishop didn't have high enough regard for the intelligence of his readership to think they might do some comparison and contrast or some critical thinking.

Sort of like the implied readership of the National Enquirer, I suppose.

Or other publications that come to mind . . .

[Jim Stiles]

7 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

    True LDS Doctrine Salvation/Soteriology Is A True Love/Faith/Covenant/Obedience Form/Model not a self righteous form/model . Try again, read the 2 Nephi 25:23 in context please and try to understand our True position.

Counting The Cost To Follow Him

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7                              

Grace after all that you can do is works salvation.  Grace is not applied until the works is done.  2 Nephi 25:23 is simply the old Covenant of Works, which is no salvation whatsoever.

Quote

2 Nephi 25:23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

No one ever does all that they can do; to say otherwise is a wicked, impious lie.  If Adam and Eve had followed the one simple rule, then they would have been saved.  They (and by extension, we) did not, so another plan was needed.

[Jeanne]

18 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

Man, I think just about every thread I've started has turned into strange arguments. Lol.

Just look at it as you are a good thread starter...an interesting guy with interesting questions!!  Jeanne kills threads.

[Russell C McGregor]

15 minutes ago, salgare said:

This is why I have concluded that the “Givens movement” (a term I now suggest to replace the labeling of individuals here and their philosophies which I was calling nuanced), are trying to hide the humanism from being exposed, trying to simply blend into Mormonism without rocking the boat. 

What "Givens movement" is that? I know not any.

15 minutes ago, salgare said:

The six excommunicated were intellectuals (Paul) Gay supporters and Feminist who Boyd K. Packer labeled the enemies of the Church.   Learn about the excommunications of one of the infamous “September Six” (1993 as Mainstreaming was first being advanced) It was an attempt at silencing hard core old school and you will hear a once true believer in Adam-god tell of his beliefs and experiences.

Let's see.

They were "intellectuals" (do you really think there were only six intellectuals in the Church in 1993?) who were advancing radical feminist notions -- and you think they represent the "hard core old school?"

What's wrong with this picture?

[UtahTexan]

20 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

 

 

Jim has moved this argument to a new thread HERE

only about the plates.  What he was dodging...and still is...the his faith and works points I have questioned

[Russell C McGregor]

On ‎11‎/‎04‎/‎2016 at 1:13 AM, Steve Noel said:

You may find it interesting that both James White and Bill McKeever feel that the label is wrongly applied to them. In their minds this term speaks to their motives. They state that they do not hate the Latter-day Saints but love them. 

I typed "anti-Mormon" at Bill McKeever's website and this is one of the articles:

http://www.mrm.org/is-mrm-anti-mormon

 

Yeah, one of the popular schticks among converservative Protestant anti-Mormons is to say something like, "I'm not anti-Mormon; I'm anti-Mormonism." When asked to explain that, they'll say something like, "I love Mormons and want to save them from the satanic deceptions of the Mormon cult," etc.

Well, describing the Church of Jesus Christ as "satanic" or a "cult" seems pretty anti-Mormon to me.

And James White got the wind taken out of his sails when he asked an LDS scholar if he was "anti-Baptist." The scholar replied (from memory) "No, I love Baptists. It's baptism I can't stand."

 

[Russell C McGregor]

On ‎11‎/‎04‎/‎2016 at 1:18 AM, Steve Noel said:

This is one of the surprising things I have learned since interacting on this message board. I was not aware that some Latter-day Saints label other Latter-day Saints anti-Mormons.

I'm not sure that that happens so much.

What happens a lot more is that in anonymous internet fora like this one, we'll get anti-Mormons masquerading as Mormons in order to sneak their hostile agenda under the radar.

It used to be quite a thing around here to see a new member pop up and claim to be a really active lifetime member who's served in ever calling in the ward (including bishop and Relief Society President) and who has "just one teeny tiny question" which turns out to be a standard anti-Mormon talking point.

And as soon as someone answers that teeny tiny question, they'd have another one, which would be -- you guessed it -- yet another standard anti-Mormon talking point.

And it would go around and around, with that oh so faithful Latter-day Saint going down the whole laundry list.

 

[salgare]

 

3 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

What "Givens movement" is that? I know not any.

Your are absolutely right!  Yes, of course how would you know about it when its being keep on the down and low?  Thanks Russell you have helped me to identify what it really appears to be ... the Givens underground.  I will use this description from here on out. 

Wow, talking about really excellent Fifth Columnists!  Orthodoxy to Humanism!  Thumbs up everyone.

 

27 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Yeah, one of the popular schticks among converservative Protestant anti-Mormons is to say something like, "I'm not anti-Mormon; I'm anti-Mormonism." When asked to explain that, they'll say something like, "I love Mormons and want to save them from the satanic deceptions of the Mormon cult," etc.

A common theme among Mormon anti-Mormons is we say something like "I'm not anti-Mormon I'm anti-LDS.inc".  Of course the Church could solve this concern with transparent fiances, assuming there was nothing to hide.

 

23 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I'm not sure that that happens so much.

What happens a lot more is that in anonymous internet fora like this one, we'll get anti-Mormons masquerading as Mormons in order to sneak their hostile agenda under the radar.

Sure what Russell has described happens from time to time, those fakers are easily identified and don't last here long.  Likely the entire list of regular critics here are Mormon and considered anti-Mormon by a few here.  The same is true for the board not to be named and especially the NOM board.  There are several who started out as apologist, even being associated with FairMormon, all whom are considered anti-Mormon by a few here.