I'm Sorry, But I Really Love This Board

[smac97]

On 5/27/2016 at 2:32 PM, Teancum said:

Whether such characterization is false or true is in the eye of the beholder. 

Perhaps.  Meanwhile, whether Ed Decker is or is not "anti-Mormon" is not "in the eye of the beholder."

Quote

However there is no question that Mormonism makes many empirical claims which cannot be validated by empirical data

Nor invalidated, I think.

Quote

and some that many would argue have been proven false by empirical data. 

C'mon.  Even you don't buy what you are trying to sell, 'cuz if you did you wouldn't be so wishy-washy.  If a thing has been "proven false by empirical data," then qualifying that declaration with "many would argue" is unnecessary.  That even you (!) can't bring yourself to unqualifiedly declare the empirical falsification of LDS truth claims demonstrates, I think, that no such falsification has occurred.

Quote

Faith and personal metaphysical experiences for the truth claims of the LDS Church are a hallmark approach and often will trump evidence or lack thereof.

Yep.  And I'm supremely okay with that.  "Evidence" is not "proof."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 27, 2016 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I didn't spin it. He didn't believe the church would deny baptism or blessing to the children of gay couples. I even explained it applied to those with primary custody until they were 18. I didn't mention the disavowal part because by then I had stopped talking. I expect people on this board to assume I spin or even lie. I didn't expect it from my dad. Still hurts. 

As has been shown in protracted argumentation on this board and elsewhere, a case can be made that the new policy is reasonable and compassionate, just the opposite of what detractors are making it out to be. But it generally takes some explanation and context.

If, as you imply here, your father was theretofore oblivious to the new policy, it sounds like you blindsided him with it by springing it on him cold and perhaps presenting it in the worst possible light. A defensive reaction is understandable in such circumstances, whether or not it is justifiable.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, sure.  But that has more to do with the thing being described, rather than the descriptor itself.

For example, a person described as "anti-abortion" would probably not find that word to have a negative connotation, because the thing being described (opposition to abortion) can be viewed favorably, even honorably.  In contrast, a person described as "anti-Semitic" probably would find the word as having a negative connotation, because . . . well, hostility or prejudice against Jews is an innately negative thing (in my view, anyway).

Thanks,

-Smac

So you're with Scott in not finding the word to be a hindrance to civil discussion.   Fair enough. We will just have to disagree. 

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As has been shown by protracted argumentation on this board and elsewhere, a case can be made that the new policy is reasonable and compassionate, just the opposite of what detractors are making it out to be. But it generally takes some explanation and context.

If, as you imply here, your father was theretofore oblivious to the new policy, it sounds like you blindsided him with it by springing it on him cold and perhaps presenting it in the worst possible light. A defensive reaction is understandable in such circumstances.

Scott, you don't turn away kids.  Period.  It looks like protection but it is shunning.

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Scott, you don't turn away kids.  Period.  It looks like protection but it is shunning.

I quite strongly disagree, both with the assumption that it's "turning away kids" and with the "shunning" epithet.

See here.

Furthermore, I still strongly suspect that many -- perhaps most -- of those who object to it on the grounds of its "turning away kids" are in fact more interested in gaining entitlement for parents who insist on carrying forward a lifestyle out of harmony with the teachings of the Church.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

On 5/27/2016 at 2:48 PM, jkwilliams said:

So you're with Scott in not finding the word to be a hindrance to civil discussion.   Fair enough. We will just have to disagree. 

You will note that in my posts I do not throw around "anti-Mormon" willy-nilly.  I (generally) do not use it for its pejorative connotations, but rather for its objective utility as an apt descriptor.  So although I don't capitulate to critics when they demand that it not be used at all, I am generally sparing in my use of it overall.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As has been shown by protracted argumentation on this board and elsewhere, a case can be made that the new policy is reasonable and compassionate, just the opposite of what detractors are making it out to be. But it generally takes some explanation and context.

If, as you imply here, your father was theretofore oblivious to the new policy, it sounds like you blindsided him with it by springing it on him cold and perhaps presenting it in the worst possible light. A defensive reaction is understandable in such circumstances.

I simply said custodial children of gay couples can't be baptized until they are 18. He said he didn't believe the church would do that, so I stopped talking.

It doesn't matter. I know what I said. I was talking to Jeanne, and she understood. I don't expect anyone else to understand. I expected some to say I distorted the truth, so it would be silly to take it personally. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So you're with Scott in not finding the word to be a hindrance to civil discussion.   Fair enough. We will just have to disagree. 

Actually, Smac said as much before I did. I came on this thread to agree with Smac, not the other way around.

 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Actually, Smac said as much before I did. I came on this thread to agree with Smac, not the other way around.

I stand corrected. I really shouldn't be surprised that you two like that word. 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I stand corrected. I really shouldn't be surprised that you two like that word. 

Well, smac just said he doesn't throw it around willy nilly.

Neither do I.

In fact I try to be careful with how I use any word or phrase.

But that's not to say it should never, ever be used.

As smac has pointed out, anti-Mormonism does exist in concept and in reality. It is beyond absurd to claim or imply that there is no such thing as an anti-Mormon. Hence, my sig line.

 

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, smac just said he doesn't throw it around willy nilly.

Neither do I.

In fact I try to be careful with how I use any word or phrase.

But that's not to say it should never, ever be used.

As smac has pointed out, anti-Mormonism does exist in concept and in reality. It is beyond absurd to claim or imply that there is no such thing as an anti-Mormon. Hence, my sig line.

 

I am going to start calling you two the "Bobsy Twins"!  It sounds way better than pro-mormon!

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I am going to start calling you two the "Bobsy Twins"!  It sounds way better than pro-mormon!

Sometimes the only way to tell them apart is that one of them has a thing for Kate Kelly. 😀

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I am going to start calling you two the "Bobsy Twins"!  It sounds way better than pro-mormon!

Actually, my favorite series of children's novels is the Hardy Boys, which, like the Bobbsey Twins, is a product of the Stratemeyer Syndicate. 

The Nancy Drew series is also an output of that syndicate.

All three series were penned by various authors writing under pseudonyms. For the Hardy Boys it was Franklin Dixon; for the Nancy Drew series, Carolyn Keene, and for the Bobbsey Twins, Laura Lee Hope.

But you can call me pro-Mormon. I will gladly embrace it.

[Jeanne]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Actually, my favorite series of children's novels is the Hardy Boys, which, like the Bobbsey Twins, is a product of the Stratemeyer Syndicate. 

The Nancy Drew series is also an output of that syndicate.

All three series were penned by various authors writing under pseudonyms. For the Hardy Boys it was Franklin Dixon; for the Nancy Drew series, Carolyn Keene, and for the Bobbsey Twins, Laura Lee Hope.

But you can call me pro-Mormon. I will gladly embrace it.

Well...I am still partial to Laura Ingalls Wilder..loved her books.  Those were the days...loved Nancy Drew too..Heck..I miss Nancy and Sluggo in the comic sections!  Just don't get obsessed with Kelly.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Jeanne

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

Well...I am still partial to Laura Ingalls Wilder..loved her books.  Those were the days...loved Nancy Drew too..Heck..I miss Nancy and Sluggo in the comic sections!  Just don't get obsessed with Kelly.

I loved The Great Brain series when I was a boy. 

[smac97]

On 5/27/2016 at 3:31 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Actually, my favorite series of children's novels is the Hardy Boys, which, like the Bobbsey Twins, is a product of the Stratemeyer Syndicate. 

The Nancy Drew series is also an output of that syndicate.

All three series were penned by various authors writing under pseudonyms. For the Hardy Boys it was Franklin Dixon; for the Nancy Drew series, Carolyn Keene, and for the Bobbsey Twins, Laura Lee Hope.

But you can call me pro-Mormon. I will gladly embrace it.

My favorite books growing up were Louis L'amour novels, Greco-Roman mythology, Lee Nelson's "Storm Testament" series, and To Kill a Mockingbird.

Favorite Comics: Calvin and Hobbes, The Far Side, and Bloom County.

Thanks,

-Smax

[Johnnie Cake]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A surefire way to gain a mass of rep points right off the bat, eh Johnnie Cake?

Don't know how to take this comment. Are you suggesting I had less than honourable or truthful motivations for my OP?

[Johnnie Cake]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, I think it has something of a negative connotation.  People of generally decent character, but who choose to publicly oppose and speak out against, say, Jews are aptly described as "anti-Semites."  Such persons will likely dislike that description of their behavior, but their dislike does not trump reality or the normative use of the English language.

I'm generally not inclined to define people by their perspective on Mormonism until and unless they exhibit behavior plainly demonstrating and demarcating that perspective. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Curious. By your standards am I anti Mormon?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Johnnie Cake said:

Curious. By your standards am I anti Mormon?

I would not go there at all. 

[Johnnie Cake]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I tend not to use it or the term "TBM," as both are loaded terms that don't lend themselves to civil discussion. The signature to me suggests that recognizing "anti-Mormon" as a loaded term is a kind of deception practiced by someone who "whispereth in their ears" (2 Nephi 28:21). That is a not-so-subtle equation of anti-Mormons with the devil, which again is kind of a nonstarter when trying to have a civil discussion. There are definitely people who are anti-Mormon in that they genuinely oppose the LDS church and work hard at that opposition. That said, it's not particularly charitable to link them to the devil, and it gets doubly problematic when the label "anti-Mormon" is applied haphazardly to anyone who disagrees with one's position. 

Likewise, people use TBM, which is supposedly shorthand for "true believing Mormon," but it is mostly used as a pejorative with the connotation of a willfully ignorant believer who doesn't question anything and accepts whatever he or she is told (cf. the odious "sheeple" label). I don't use it because most Mormons I know are thoughtful and have their own opinions. I guess I could use it when I deem it appropriate, but that's probably never, because I recognize it's a loaded and insulting term. So is "anti-Mormon."

Just saying.

I have refrained from using TBM for this same reasons...out of respect to those who may fine offense with its use

[Guest]

18 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I just really enjoy the free exchange of information, the opportunity to both challenge and defend a position and I love the fact that it's not an echo chamber.  I also enjoy that nothing I say is taken at face value and for the most part everyone is respectful  

Thank you for allowing me to participate and thank you for holding me accountable. 

"Where two are more are gathered in my name I will be there also". Glad to hear it, the spirit of contention cannot or should not ever be amount friends and family or websites devoted to such discussions as we have here. I am reminded of what Christ said, He said (and I paraphrase), "The spirit of contentions is no of me", as well as "on the day of judgement you will be judge by every idle word". I think the exchange (though it can get heated at times) here reflects the demeanor of those trying to follow Christ. This is a website "which stands for something" ad no a website like many others where "it's against everything". Glad you are here and like it here. 😎

[jkwilliams]

Since no one asked, I would define an anti-Mormon as follows:

1. Someone who is prejudiced against Mormons as a group and individually. 

Or

2. Someone who actively works to 

a) weaken or destroy the LDS church

or

b) get people to leave the LDS church

Earlier this week, a former member stated his strong disagreement with how the church treats homosexuals, and he expressed his desire to change that treatment. Does that make him an anti-Mormon?

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

2. Someone who actively works to 

a) weaken or destroy the LDS church

or

b) get people to leave the LDS church

So if someone's actions achieve this results but they didn't actively work at it they aren't anti?

Kind of like manslaughter vs murder?
Same result for the victim.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

So if someone's actions achieve this results but they didn't actively work at it they aren't anti?

Kind of like manslaughter vs murder?
Same result for the victim.

I know believing Mormons whose actions have achieved these results, but I would not call them anti-Mormons. 

Intent is everything. 

[Jeanne]

18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Since no one asked, I would define an anti-Mormon as follows:

1. Someone who is prejudiced against Mormons as a group and individually. 

Or

2. Someone who actively works to 

a) weaken or destroy the LDS church

or

b) get people to leave the LDS church

Earlier this week, a former member stated his strong disagreement with how the church treats homosexuals, and he expressed his desire to change that treatment. Does that make him an anti-Mormon?

 

40 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Curious. By your standards am I anti Mormon?

I have already asked him the same question about me.  He doesn't want to personalize this thread for which I respect.