New four-volume comprehensive history of the Church to emerge next year

[Bob Crockett]

3 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Is an "anti-mormon" merely someone who disagrees with the church's conclusions or is it something more? How would you define "anti-mormon?"

On this board I think an anti-Mormon is one who raises questions about the Church (serious or otherwise) but who doesn't care a whole lot about the answer or response.  Or somebody who comes here just to bait with repeated opening posts that are baiting in nature.   In terms of a published anti-Mormon, it is sometimes hard to tell the difference between a critic and an anti-Mormon.  The latter typically wants to help members find exits.  The former engages in criticism for critique's sake.  A critic tends to be published by a reputable press; an anti-Mormon not.

Sometimes a critic on this board doesn't really realize that he or she has crossed the line and is ridiculing another's faith just to bring it down.  It's like poking fun at the Judaic practice of separating men and women in congregations, or engaging in repetitive prayer. 

Although I am a super big fan of Brigham Young, sometimes in private church gatherings I like to bring up Brigham Young anecdotes to humorously show what a petty man he can be at times.  It helps me understand human nature and help others understand that God calls men to be prophets and not ascetic hermits.

But I routinely rely upon works considered to be anti-Mormon to help me understand history and doctrine, just as I rely upon atheistic treatments of the New Testament to understand its supposed weaknesses.  I think that is common in almost any discipline.  Read your critics and understand them. Sometimes they are right.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

The anti-mormon boogeyman strikes again, waiting to tell the unsuspecting sheep new facts about church history that the church will admit years later.

As Stephen Robinson has said:

Quote

Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of Signature Books camouflaged as a "Latter-day Saint" press. I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up.  https://publications.mi.byu.edu/pdf-control.php/publications/review/3/1/S00022-The_Word_of_God_Essays_on_Mormon_Scripture.html .

Or, with Bogey, don't you object to "cut-rate" parasites?  

 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think it is easy to understand what he said because the narrative the church has been using doesn't comport with the actual history and it has to be changed.  Are you concerned that people might overreact to Bushman saying that any change to the narrative is necessary?

I am only concerned that what Bushman is actually saying (which I have been saying for decades as well) will be taken out context, twisted, and misused in ways he never intended.  In other words, Pete, those who live to continually recreate the pathetic fallacy have already told us who they really are -- wolves in sheep's clothing.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, longview said:

Most people would say our political culture is extremely polarized between the hard left (Democrats, Socialists, Communists marching in lockstep) and the traditional values crowd (conservatives, religious adherents, et al who are reeling and trying to unify and mount a resistance to the "social engineers").   The moderates and zany fringe parties make up the remaining third but are greatly outnumbered by both polar sides.  Elections are tilted by the middle group one way or the other depending on their mood or passion.

These are incoherent groupings of yokels whose primary objective is to belong to something, anything that will give their empty lives meaning (see E. Hoffer, The True Believer, and The Passionate State of Mind).  Since they know nothing of history or political science, they are easily influenced and manipulated.  Ideologues and demagogues can easily whip them into a frenzy, the bigger the lie the more likely to be believed.

10 hours ago, longview said:

..................................  I agree that broadcasters may appeal more to the "rabble" (Rush Limbaugh refers to them as being the "low information voters").  And print media attracts more of the thoughtful and well educated segment of the population.  But even within both groups, the polarization is strong and very noticeable.

Of course, and so very convenient.  However, most broadcast organizations are part of much larger corporate structures, whose primary objective is profit.  They have investors to satisfy.  in the longview, we should "follow the money."

10 hours ago, longview said:

Could be.  I also believe MSM did support the disinformation campaign of the USSR in the aftermath of the JFK assassination to the point of trivializing the connection between Harvey Oswald and the KGB.

However, it has already been pointed out by several commentators that present day imperial Russia had more to gain with Hillary's election for the following reasons:  1- Democrats have a wishy washy approach to foreign policy (as proven by Carter, Bubba Clinton and Obama);  2- Obama did nothing when Russia invaded Georgia, Ukraine and Crimea (where Reagan would have responded much more vigorously);  3- Hillary gave Russia a sweet deal while Secretary of State in making possible the sale of a large supply of Uranium (and a subsequent large deposit in her Clinton Foundation coffers).

Putin had very little control over Hillary's illegal email server (it was leaked by a DNC insider) and disclosures of abhorrent behavior by Hillary, John Podesta and a whole raft of bad actors. 

So, in the longview, we are reduced to deciding which is the bigger liar?  Trump or Hilary.  Is that all there is?  And should we spend the next several generations repeating shopworn woulda, coulda, shoulda claims?  Is that really what it's all about?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Good question, thanks for asking it!

 

 

5 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Thank you. I think it's an important question because "anti-mormon" is used so often to squelch discussion by improperly labeling the questioner as an "anti."

Did either of you even bother to read my response?

[longview]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course, and so very convenient.  However, most broadcast organizations are part of much larger corporate structures, whose primary objective is profit.  They have investors to satisfy.  in the longview, we should "follow the money."

Such as George Soros and his leftist allies?

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, in the longview, we are reduced to deciding which is the bigger liar?  Trump or Hilary.

No.  I fully support Pres. Trump's objective of draining the swamp.

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Did either of you even bother to read my response?

I have been too focused on Robert's posts I guess. 

[MiserereNobis]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would never go on a Catholic board, or any other board, to contend against the faith.

That's because us Catholics would blow you out of the water with our impeccable logic and irrefutable proofs

On a serious note, though, it is an issue of respect. Since I am a Catholic, you all know that I disagree with the LDS church on various important issues. Sometimes my disagreement pokes its head out (gently, I hope), but mostly I'm here because your religion fascinates me and it's interesting to see what you are saying... and my ego likes to add my two cents, ha.  I think faithful people of good will can go to other religions' boards and observe and comment and be respectful while it is also obvious, but not necessarily explicit, they they disagree with the beliefs of those whose boards they are on.  That makes for good dialogue, which is why this is the Mormon board I landed on years ago. (That makes it sound like I fished around for a Mormon board, but honestly this was the first one I checked out and I liked it, so here I am)

I am still trying to figure out the "anti-Mormon" label, because its definition seems to be dependent on who is using it.  Maybe the grey area is where someone is attacking the LDS church and their motives are unclear why, perhaps even to that person.  I've seen such things many times in Catholicism (oh, we've got our "anti's", that's for sure!).  Sometimes I feel like people are authentic in their complaints, and I want to talk to them and help them understand my point of view.  However, sometimes it seems like people don't care what my response would be, no matter the response, and that their "questions" are really rhetorical, in the sense that the question is meant to be a point made and no answer is expected nor would be accepted.  Those are the "anti's" in my view.

But... sometimes it is hard to distinguish between the two, and sometimes I wonder how much my own prejudice and even laziness might make me view someone who is actually sincere as someone who isn't.  It can be a tough call, for sure.

Edited June 12, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[Calm]

If you know a comparable Catholic board, please let me know.  Due to my obsessive nature, I have limited myself to one board at a time, but I don't read half as much here as I used to plus I don't think it would be missing much if I skipped a few more (not saying the threads aren't valuable, but so many are repeats of discussions I have participated in for over a decade), so perhaps I might manage not to end up with no time to do anything else.

[RevTestament]

18 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I am still trying to figure out the "anti-Mormon" label, because its definition seems to be dependent on who is using it.  Maybe the grey area is where someone is attacking the LDS church and their motives are unclear why, perhaps even to that person.  I've seen such things many times in Catholicism (oh, we've got our "anti's", that's for sure!).  Sometimes I feel like people are authentic in their complaints, and I want to talk to them and help them understand my point of view.  However, sometimes it seems like people don't care what my response would be, no matter the response, and that their "questions" are really rhetorical, in the sense that the question is meant to be a point made and no answer is expected nor would be accepted.  Those are the "anti's" in my view.

But... sometimes it is hard to distinguish between the two, and sometimes I wonder how much my own prejudice and even laziness might make me view someone who is actually sincere as someone who isn't.  It can be a tough call, for sure.

This is one reason I don't bother labeling people as "anti." If they are critics, that will come out soon enough, and I don't mind calling authors of criticism critics.

Edited June 12, 2017 by RevTestament

[MiserereNobis]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you know a comparable Catholic board, please let me know.  Due to my obsessive nature, I have limited myself to one board at a time, but I don't read half as much here as I used to plus I don't think it would be missing much if I skipped a few more (not saying the threads aren't valuable, but so many are repeats of discussions I have participated in for over a decade), so perhaps I might manage not to end up with no time to do anything else.

Sorry, Calm, I am a one board person, too, so I am not on any Catholic boards. I guess I get my Catholic interactions every week, ha. Years ago I checked out two Catholic boards but didn't really like either (one was too big and both were too confrontational).

But if you decide to poke around and find a good Catholic board, let me know!

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Such as George Soros and his leftist allies?

No.  I fully support Pres. Trump's objective of draining the swamp.

You made it seem so facile that we were confronted by extreme polarization, and I agree.  Yet you appear to be part of that very swamp which you decry.  How ever did you get taken in so easily?

[MiserereNobis]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You made it seem so facile that we were confronted by extreme polarization, and I agree.  Yet you appear to be part of that very swamp which you decry.  How ever did you get taken in so easily?

The key to understanding this is that in his polarized view of the world one half of the binary is the "hard left," which are democrats (? yes, the other major political party), socialists, and communists (an irrational lumping), and the second half of the binary is the traditional values crowd, where he lumps conservatives and religious believers, i.e. the good guys.

In other words, he set up a false dichotomy which allows him to ignore his own polarization and indeed even his own false dichotomy.

Edited June 12, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[Robert F. Smith]

16 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The key to understanding this is that in his polarized view of the world one half of the binary is the "hard left," which are democrats (? yes, the other major political party), socialists, and communists (an irrational lumping), and the second half of the binary is the traditional values crowd, where he lumps conservatives and religious believers, i.e. the good guys.

In other words, he set up a false dichotomy which allows him to ignore his own polarization and indeed even his own false dichotomy.

Quite so.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

That's because us Catholics would blow you out of the water with our impeccable logic and irrefutable proofs

On a serious note, though, it is an issue of respect. Since I am a Catholic, you all know that I disagree with the LDS church on various important issues. Sometimes my disagreement pokes its head out (gently, I hope), but mostly I'm here because your religion fascinates me and it's interesting to see what you are saying... and my ego likes to add my two cents, ha.  I think faithful people of good will can go to other religions' boards and observe and comment and be respectful while it is also obvious, but not necessarily explicit, they they disagree with the beliefs of those whose boards they are on.  That makes for good dialogue, which is why this is the Mormon board I landed on years ago. (That makes it sound like I fished around for a Mormon board, but honestly this was the first one I checked out and I liked it, so here I am)

For the record, I've never regarded you as disrespectful or as having any intention to contend against my faith. I will reiterate that merely disagreeing with something does not amount to opposing it.

Quote

I am still trying to figure out the "anti-Mormon" label, because its definition seems to be dependent on who is using it. 

I still don't think it's all that complicated when one remembers that the prefix anti- means opposed to. Either one is opposed to a thing or one isn't. And again, mere disagreement does not amount to opposition. I hope I've made that clear when I said I can disagree with a thing but be indifferent about it vs. being opposed to it.

So I guess what we have to determine is whether or not, on an individual basis, one really is opposed to Mormonism. Some will claim they aren't when it's pretty obvious from their conduct that they are.

And some act as though there is no such thing as an anti-Mormon. That is a ridiculous contention.

 

Edited June 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

If you know a comparable Catholic board, please let me know.  Due to my obsessive nature, I have limited myself to one board at a time, but I don't read half as much here as I used to plus I don't think it would be missing much if I skipped a few more (not saying the threads aren't valuable, but so many are repeats of discussions I have participated in for over a decade), so perhaps I might manage not to end up with no time to do anything else.

 

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Sorry, Calm, I am a one board person, too, so I am not on any Catholic boards. I guess I get my Catholic interactions every week, ha. Years ago I checked out two Catholic boards but didn't really like either (one was too big and both were too confrontational).

But if you decide to poke around and find a good Catholic board, let me know!

 

From a quick Google search I found this. I don't know whether it would be to the liking of either of you, but perhaps you could check it out if you haven't already. (I have not done so; merely clicked on the link and glanced at the home page.)

Its title is "Defenders of the Catholic Faith," so it might be roughly a counterpart to this board, although this board has become far less of a defense-of-the-faith board over time and has evolved into more of an in-house, navel-gazing, whine-over-what-you-don't-like-about-Mormonism board.

Which is why I almost departed a few weeks ago. Something siren-like keeps drawing me back.

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

On this board I think an anti-Mormon is one who raises questions about the Church (serious or otherwise) but who doesn't care a whole lot about the answer or response.  Or somebody who comes here just to bait with repeated opening posts that are baiting in nature.   In terms of a published anti-Mormon, it is sometimes hard to tell the difference between a critic and an anti-Mormon.  The latter typically wants to help members find exits.  The former engages in criticism for critique's sake.  A critic tends to be published by a reputable press; an anti-Mormon not.

Sometimes a critic on this board doesn't really realize that he or she has crossed the line and is ridiculing another's faith just to bring it down.  It's like poking fun at the Judaic practice of separating men and women in congregations, or engaging in repetitive prayer. 

Although I am a super big fan of Brigham Young, sometimes in private church gatherings I like to bring up Brigham Young anecdotes to humorously show what a petty man he can be at times.  It helps me understand human nature and help others understand that God calls men to be prophets and not ascetic hermits.

But I routinely rely upon works considered to be anti-Mormon to help me understand history and doctrine, just as I rely upon atheistic treatments of the New Testament to understand its supposed weaknesses.  I think that is common in almost any discipline.  Read your critics and understand them. Sometimes they are right.

I think I may be in the category of a whistleblower. I feel like there are leaders that harm members with their policies/sermons/disciplinary measures/lessons the whole gamut. The way they can forget the NT Christ. I am a critic more than anything along those lines.

I see where families are divided in our religion. My daughter-in-law's sister is going through it right now. Her in-laws have never accepted her. Because she doesn't fit the LDS mold such as marrying their son in the temple etc. They are so awful that this sister and husband don't dare move back to where these in-laws live which is where this gals family live also. So much for family is everything in the church.

The leaders through the years have misused their power by putting out information that may lead to that mentality. And I don't believe in some facets of the LDS church. So I may lean toward anti Mormonism not anti-Mormon. Those things that don't appear to be Christ centered or the New Testament God.

I am a critic of early leaders' choices and using God's name to either condemn or use God's name to satisfy certain desires that normally would be against a society norm.  

I see the negative a lot because of listening/ reading the stories of the disillusionment/disaffected LDS or former LDS over abuse in the church. Just as seen in some other religions. Comparing JW's and Scientologists who seem to be totally devoted to their religions above all else.

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Did either of you even bother to read my response?

I did.  I suppose you would say an "anti-mormon" disagrees and wants to proselytize the disagreement?

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think I may be in the category of a whistleblower. I feel like there are leaders that harm members with their policies/sermons/disciplinary measures/lessons the whole gamut. The way they can forget the NT Christ. I am a critic more than anything along those lines.

I see where families are divided in our religion. My daughter-in-law's sister is going through it right now. Her in-laws have never accepted her. Because she doesn't fit the LDS mold such as marrying their son in the temple etc. They are so awful that this sister and husband don't dare move back to where these in-laws live which is where this gals family live also. So much for family is everything in the church.

The leaders through the years have misused their power by putting out information that may lead to that mentality. And I don't believe in some facets of the LDS church. So I may lean toward anti Mormonism not anti-Mormon. Those things that don't appear to be Christ centered or the New Testament God.

I am a critic of early leaders' choices and using God's name to either condemn or use God's name to satisfy certain desires that normally would be against a society norm.  

I see the negative a lot because of listening/ reading the stories of the disillusionment/disaffected LDS or former LDS over abuse in the church. Just as seen in some other religions. Comparing JW's and Scientologists who seem to be totally devoted to their religions above all else.

 

This. 

[JLHPROF]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As Stephen Robinson has said:
  instead of Signature Books camouflaged as a "Latter-day Saint" press. I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up.

 

Wait, Signature Books is considered "anti"?
I have enjoyed so many of their books, including ones by active members in good standing.  I wouldn't consider them an anti-Mormon organization.
As for "camouflage"?  I was under no illusion they had any affiliation with the Church.  Were others?

[clarkgoble]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Wait, Signature Books is considered "anti"?
I have enjoyed so many of their books, including ones by active members in good standing.  I wouldn't consider them an anti-Mormon organization.
As for "camouflage"?  I was under no illusion they had any affiliation with the Church.  Were others?

I think most of the Sunstone authors have a pretty clear stance. Whether one considers them anti is a bit beside the point and is quibbling over semantics. But many, if not most, of the authors disbelieve the basic truth claims of the church and feel compelled to point that out. That is they're not just interested in objective history but have a bit of a grudge against the church. Again, whether or not that is anti is perhaps less interesting than just acknowledging those stances.

Of course those with grudges can still make very compelling arguments. I think the problem with the anti-Mormon terms is how it lets people dismiss arguments. (Ditto with people dismissed as apologists -- the problem is always the dismissing part)

Edited June 12, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Pete Ahlstrom]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Wait, Signature Books is considered "anti"?
I have enjoyed so many of their books, including ones by active members in good standing.  I wouldn't consider them an anti-Mormon organization.
As for "camouflage"?  I was under no illusion they had any affiliation with the Church.  Were others?

I think it's obvious that signature books is not trying to camouflage itself as being affiliated with the church.  This goes to the use of the term "anti-mormon" to get people to avoid alternative sources to the sugar coated "approved" sources.  If one only looks at church approved sources, then one will certainly be surprised at the true history.  I thought the church wanted to inoculate the youth and members.  Properly inoculated youth and members should easily be able to withstand the fiery darts of signature books. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Of course those with grudges can still make very compelling arguments. I think the problem with the anti-Mormon terms is how it lets people dismiss arguments.

It's part of the ad hominem fallacy arsenal.

[clarkgoble]

9 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

It's part of the ad hominem fallacy arsenal.

Well I think one has to be careful here. I there there are two issues. The first is the more economic question of where we spend time studying. There I think there's a big difference between ad hominem and a simple question of focus. To make an analogous point, I don't spend a lot of time paying attention to anti-vaccination figures because I see their main arguments as weak or misleading. So I don't bother to deal with what I'm sure are stronger arguments in the group. Likewise I can completely understand those who reject anti-Mormons (or for the other side apologists) simply because in terms of their basic stances the main arguments are wrong. That's just not ad hominem. 

For those who are interested in the theology or history though that obviously won't work. You can't dismiss them and have to deal with the arguments.

[longview]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You made it seem so facile that we were confronted by extreme polarization, and I agree.

I agree with you that the situation is extremely complex but I do not think we have reached the point of absolute polarization.  The scriptures seem to indicate that there will be increasing polarization until the Second Coming.  Very possible there will be no third parties at that point.

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yet you appear to be part of that very swamp which you decry.

Your statement here is VERY puzzling.  Are you saying I am part of the graft, back-scratching cronyism, general corruption, shadow government defiance, Globalist machinations, etc?  Please clarify.

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

How ever did you get taken in so easily?

I am a follower of thoughtful conservatives such as Robert Spencer, Pam Geller, David Horowitz (former radical communist now self reformed conservative), Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, Laura Schlessinger, Adrian Vance, Laura Ingraham, etc.  I read a great deal of historical, scientific, a few novels, and so on.  But, I guess, I don't quite measure up to you?