Popular Post Calm Posted August 21, 2016 Popular Post Posted August 21, 2016 http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/more-effective-apologetics 8
Rivers Posted August 22, 2016 Posted August 22, 2016 (edited) I like this line: “It's no longer 'Every member a missionary,' so much as 'Every member an apologist.' ” This same theme was brought up in Bro. Mason's talk; that we are spending too much time on the defense. And I agree. Edited August 22, 2016 by Rivers 1
Five Solas Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 One of the highlights from your link, Calm, and one which I suggest you give real, personal consideration-- And I would recommend retiring the term “Anti-Mormon,” unless people are happy to claim the label for themselves; it’s not helpful in any of the four conversations I will be describing. Generally, it is far better to assume good will than bad faith; kindness and generosity are always in order. I can't help but note the irony that this, your thread, came on the heels of you sallying forth to defend Scott Lloyd's use of that term against me. For any who may have missed it, Scott's "designation" for me is here. Calm's defense of Scott is here (and it got 3 rep points!). In all seriousness, will Grant Hardy's advice cause you to reconsider, or will you stand by yours and Scott's previous posts? What he wrote was offensive--I'm NOT against people, Mormons or otherwise, and there are many LDS in my extended family. I love them--and I've given no one here cause for doubt. It would be great to read you've reconsidered. I'd certainly appreciate it if Hardy's advice could be taken to heart on the board--it could & would be a better place. --Erik 4
cdowis Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 (edited) Let's see, he has actually spoken with non-LDS, and he has published for an academic audience. His calling is as a seminary teacher. And he wants to give his views on apologetics. Just a suggestion == you are a "text" type of person, so go to youtube and bring up some antiMormon (yes, that is the term) videos. Then sort them by the number of views, and engage with the friendly folks who post comments on these videos. Get a few hundred or so posts under your belt and get back to us, OK? Sigh. Edited August 25, 2016 by cdowis
Nevo Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 (edited) 10 hours ago, cdowis said: Just a suggestion == you are a "text" type of person, so go to youtube and bring up some antiMormon (yes, that is the term) videos. Then sort them by the number of views, and engage with the friendly folks who post comments on these videos. Get a few hundred or so posts under your belt and get back to us, OK? I couldn't agree more. Anyone who hasn't spent countless hours hanging out in the comments section on YouTube contending for the faith with anti-Mormons—as you have—has no business sharing "some personal observations and opinions, for whatever they may be worth" about apologetics. So what if he's a religious studies scholar and expert on the Book of Mormon who has written for FARMS? He hasn't been engaging the people that really matter: anonymous posters on the Internet who hate the Church. Edited August 25, 2016 by Nevo 2
hope_for_things Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 11 hours ago, cdowis said: Let's see, he has actually spoken with non-LDS, and he has published for an academic audience. His calling is as a seminary teacher. And he wants to give his views on apologetics. Just a suggestion == you are a "text" type of person, so go to youtube and bring up some antiMormon (yes, that is the term) videos. Then sort them by the number of views, and engage with the friendly folks who post comments on these videos. Get a few hundred or so posts under your belt and get back to us, OK? Sigh. It seems that comments on YouTube or other internet vehicles bring out the worst behaviors in people. There have been many observations about this, the anonymous nature of interacting with people you don't know personally. Are you saying that the reason Grant Hardy is comfortable retiring the term Anti-Mormon is because he doesn't know how harsh some people's comments are on YouTube, or other similar venues? If so, I think you're missing his point.
cdowis Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Nevo said: I couldn't agree more. Anyone who hasn't spent countless hours hanging out in the comments section on YouTube contending for the faith with anti-Mormons—as you have—has no business sharing "some personal observations and opinions, for whatever they may be worth" about apologetics. So what if he's a religious studies scholar and expert on the Book of Mormon who has written for FARMS? He hasn't been engaging the people that really matter: anonymous posters on the Internet who hate the Church. In his distancing himself from the term "anti-Mormon", I suspect that he has not met former LDS bishops who now make it a professon to attack their former church, nor those who have made hidden videos of the temple endowment (one of whom wears a mask). Perhaps he should go to the Maniti pageant and chat with the folks there. Be sure that you bring your megaphone. He would then give a hallejuah shout, and say that his eyes are now wide open. "Once I was blind, but now I can see." Edited August 25, 2016 by cdowis
ttribe Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 12 minutes ago, cdowis said: In his distancing himself from the term "anti-Mormon", I suspect that he has not met former LDS bishops who now make it a professon to attack their former church, nor those who have made hidden videos of the temple endowment (one of whom wears a mask). Perhaps he should go to the Maniti pageant and chat with the folks there. Be sure that you bring your megaphone. He would then give a hallejuah shout, and say that his eyes are now wide open. "Once I was blind, but now I can see." Oh, give it a rest. Militant LDS apologetics is dead. Good riddance to it. 1
cdowis Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, ttribe said: Oh, give it a rest. Militant LDS apologetics is dead. Good riddance to it. I agree with you. Now, please define what YOU mean by "militant apologetics". Actual examples would be helpful. PS "Rest" Thak you for your advice. When I see someone is about to make a serious mistake, I think I should say something. For example, ISIS is not a JV team of freedom fighters. Labels are important, except for the indifferent and politically correct. In case you have not noticed, Satan is paying alot more attention to the church and this is not a time for complacency. The church has made it clear that the day for simply ignoring these attacks are gone. While we do not want "militancy", we ned vigourous rebuttals, which may upset some of the antiMormons in their goal of destroying the church. Edited August 25, 2016 by cdowis
ttribe Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 (edited) 34 minutes ago, cdowis said: I agree with you. Now, please define what YOU mean by "militant apologetics". Actual examples would be helpful. PS "Rest" Thak you for your advice. When I see someone is about to make a serious mistake, I think I should say something. For example, ISIS is not a JV team of freedom fighters. Labels are important, except for the indifferent and politically correct. In case you have not noticed, Satan is paying alot more attention to the church and this is not a time for complacency. The church has made it clear that the day for simply ignoring these attacks are gone. While we do not want "militancy", we ned vigourous rebuttals, which may upset some of the antiMormons in their goal of destroying the church. Despite your opening line, it doesn't seem we agree much at all. What do I mean by "militant apologetics"? Oh, I don't know, how about - frequent ad hominem attacks on anyone who even remotely criticizes the Church or its leaders; hair-trigger use of the highly charged epithet "anti-Mormon" wielded indiscriminately; "M-E-T-C-A-L-F-I-S-A-B-U-T-T-H-E-A-D"-type sophomoric antics; default habitual responding to perceived aggression with aggression; labeling fellow members for boundary maintenance purposes (e.g. "Fifth-Columnists", "ark-steadiers", "Liberal Mormons", etc.). Edited August 25, 2016 by ttribe 3
cdowis Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 (edited) Here is an actual post on youtube "There is a secret Devil worship chamber under the main temple in Salt Lake City on North Temple St. A cave if you will. Where secret rites are offered to Lucifer." Edited August 25, 2016 by cdowis
cdowis Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 (edited) 23 minutes ago, ttribe said: Despite your opening line, it doesn't seem we agree much at all. What do I mean by "militant apologetics"? Oh, I don't know, how about - frequent ad hominem attacks on anyone who even remotely criticizes the Church or its leaders; hair-trigger use of the highly charged epithet "anti-Mormon" wielded indiscriminately; "M-E-T-C-A-L-F-I-S-A-B-U-T-T-H-E-A-D"-type sophomoric antics; default habitual responding to perceived aggression with aggression; labeling fellow members for boundary maintenance purposes (e.g. "Fifth-Columnists", "ark-steadiers", "Liberal Mormons", etc.). OK, I agree that personal attacks should play no part in apologetics,, not calling them names, etc. For example, "AntiMormon" should be used in the third person, such as "The antiMormons have poisoned your mind with their garbage" as appropriate. The individual does need to understand the effect that they are making on important decisions in his/her life. "Nobody warned me" is not going to be an excuse. I may be required to testify that I warned them in an appropriate but somewhat blunt manner. Edited August 25, 2016 by cdowis 1
ttribe Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 7 minutes ago, cdowis said: OK, I agree that personal attacks should play no part in apologetics,, not calling them names, etc. For example, "AntiMormon" should be used in the third person, such as "The antiMormons have poisoned your mind with their garbage" as appropriate. The individual does need to understand the effect that they are making on important decisions in his/her life. "Nobody warned me" is not going to be an excuse. I may be required to testify that I warned them in an appropriate but somewhat blunt manner. I get where you are coming from. Thanks for the clarification.
cdowis Posted August 26, 2016 Posted August 26, 2016 I will shamefully admit this is a significant change in my attitude over the past couple of years. This is a gentler, kinder cdowis. 2
Calm Posted August 26, 2016 Author Posted August 26, 2016 19 hours ago, Five Solas said: I can't help but note the irony that this, your thread, came on the heels of you sallying forth to defend Scott Lloyd's use of that term against me..... I find nothing in your posts that resembles my position sufficiently to require a response to so this will be it.
jkwilliams Posted August 26, 2016 Posted August 26, 2016 40 minutes ago, cdowis said: I will shamefully admit this is a significant change in my attitude over the past couple of years. This is a gentler, kinder cdowis. I don't remember you being particularly disagreeable way back on a.r.m.
Calm Posted August 26, 2016 Author Posted August 26, 2016 7 hours ago, cdowis said: Perhaps he should go to the Maniti pageant and chat with the folks there. Be sure that you bring your megaphone. Who is the "you" who you, cdowis, are instructing to bring a megaphone and for what purpose?
UtahTexan Posted August 26, 2016 Posted August 26, 2016 39 minutes ago, Calm said: Who is the "you" who you, cdowis, are instructing to bring a megaphone and for what purpose? I could not hear you, Calm......use your megaphone
Calm Posted August 26, 2016 Author Posted August 26, 2016 I will just go get the one stuffed in the back of my closet. 1
cdowis Posted August 26, 2016 Posted August 26, 2016 2 hours ago, Calm said: Who is the "you" who you, cdowis, are instructing to bring a megaphone and for what purpose? You is actually y'all. 2
Bernard Gui Posted August 26, 2016 Posted August 26, 2016 (edited) I would say that militant Evangelical anti-mormonism is on its way out, but disaffected, dissatisfied, disgruntled, or ex-Mormon militancy is on the rise. I suppose this type of criticism could be called anti-Mormonism. In pop culture, anti-Mormonism takes the form of lampoon and ridicule. Witness the wildly popular but awful "Book of Mormon: the Musical." IMO, it is an anti-Mormon production and it is alive and well, but that's just me. Edited August 26, 2016 by Bernard Gui
Tacenda Posted August 26, 2016 Posted August 26, 2016 9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: I would say that militant Evangelical anti-mormonism is on its way out, but disaffected, dissatisfied, disgruntled, or ex-Mormon militancy is on the rise. I suppose this type of criticism could be called anti-Mormonism. In pop culture, anti-Mormonism takes the form of lampoon and ridicule. Witness the wildly popular but awful "Book of Mormon: the Musical." IMO, it is an anti-Mormon production and it is alive and well, but that's just me. Agreed, but recently have someone I know, that is both ex-Mormon and an Evangelical, hitting me pretty hard that I need to leave the church because if I don't I may won't have salvation or probably go to hell. That's pretty harsh stuff.
juliann Posted August 26, 2016 Posted August 26, 2016 On 8/24/2016 at 9:41 PM, Five Solas said: One of the highlights from your link, Calm, and one which I suggest you give real, personal consideration-- And I would recommend retiring the term “Anti-Mormon,” unless people are happy to claim the label for themselves; it’s not helpful in any of the four conversations I will be describing. Generally, it is far better to assume good will than bad faith; kindness and generosity are always in order. I can't help but note the irony that this, your thread, came on the heels of you sallying forth to defend Scott Lloyd's use of that term against me. For any who may have missed it, Scott's "designation" for me is here. Calm's defense of Scott is here (and it got 3 rep points!). In all seriousness, will Grant Hardy's advice cause you to reconsider, or will you stand by yours and Scott's previous posts? What he wrote was offensive--I'm NOT against people, Mormons or otherwise, and there are many LDS in my extended family. I love them--and I've given no one here cause for doubt. It would be great to read you've reconsidered. I'd certainly appreciate it if Hardy's advice could be taken to heart on the board--it could & would be a better place. --Erik When you start going after Calm, of all people, you should give real, personal consideration to carrying your grudges into other threads. She now has 4 rep points. But I do look forward to you making this board a better place by applying your advice to others to yourself.
cdowis Posted August 26, 2016 Posted August 26, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, Tacenda said: Agreed, but recently have someone I know, that is both ex-Mormon and an Evangelical, hitting me pretty hard that I need to leave the church because if I don't I may won't have salvation or probably go to hell. That's pretty harsh stuff. "Thanks, friend, for your concern. Let's say you have me convinced, so where should I go to find salvation? Now, I've been fooled already, so how can I make sure that this new church is the real thing. I need to check it out like you did the Mormons. I discovered that the Southern Baptists quoted the Bible to justify slavery AND segregation, so how can they show the way to salvation?? Other church disagrees on basic salvatiooon, whether baptims is necssay for salvation -- some agree with what Christ said, others do not. Others say it doesn't matter as long as my mouth confesses Christ == but Satan and his angels confessed Christ, and how did that work out? "Please help me. Thanks to you, I don't want any more Smithism, but what exactly do YOU have to offer? Can we check out their history -- did they burn people at the stake, etc, and with the Bible?" H-E-L-P me!!!!! my friend. You got me out of Mormonism, now what?????? Edited August 26, 2016 by cdowis
carbon dioxide Posted August 26, 2016 Posted August 26, 2016 On 8/22/2016 at 2:43 PM, Rivers said: I like this line: “It's no longer 'Every member a missionary,' so much as 'Every member an apologist.' ” This same theme was brought up in Bro. Mason's talk; that we are spending too much time on the defense. And I agree. The average member does not spend much time on defense at all. If we are to be good missionaries, we need to be able to answer questions and "defend" the Church against attacks when they do occur.
Recommended Posts