RIP Anti Mormon Literature

[hagoth7]

47 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

...The problem is that typically those aren't the conspiracies conspiracy theorists are interested in.

I suggest it would be more constructive to simply ditch the "conspiracy theorist" label.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

I suggest it would be more constructive to simply ditch the "conspiracy theorist" label.

I'd probably disagree because while reason is part of this calculus,  conspiracy theorizing is also a major component (on all sides). It's the conspiracy aspects that I think end up shaping things in weird ways. 

[boblloyd91]

6 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

I read an article in a Christian magazine last month that was the exact opposite of anti.

A number of uber-interesting things are in motion.

Interesting if you have a link I'd love to read it

[DemonsAway]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Conspiracy theories usually don't look at evidence that might falsify them and usually is hinged on misleading or limited data. Also it's the classic example of confirmation bias where people only look at the things that confirm the theory and rarely things that go against it.

Not meaning this to sound rude, but how is this different from any religion? Confirmation bias, misleading or limited data, sounds like every religion to me.

[hagoth7]

41 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said:

Interesting if you have a link I'd love to read it

It wan't an online article. 

[The Nehor]

41 minutes ago, DemonsAway said:

Not meaning this to sound rude, but how is this different from any religion? Confirmation bias, misleading or limited data, sounds like every religion to me.

Because religious belief and/or faith is almost never based on rationality. I am convinced Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God but I am not convinced based on study of the gospel's historical accuracy and from a chain of reasoning leading to God existing. I am convinced because I have communed with the divine in my own frail mortal kind of way. I came away changed and convinced.

If conspiracy theorist based their conclusions that reptilians are mind controlling us all unless we wear tinfoil hats on having experienced being mind controlled by said aliens It would be analogous but that almost never happens. Instead the conspiracy theory is supposedly based on physical evidence and a logical chain of reasoning which is plainly fallacious and biased. Two different methods.

They have little in common unless the religious person is convinced mostly or entirely by ridiculous distortions or fabricated evidence. *cough*...believing creationism is science....*cough*

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

...If conspiracy theorist based their conclusions that reptilians are mind controlling us all unless we wear tinfoil hats on having experienced being mind controlled by said aliens It would be analogous but that almost never happens...

? *almost* never? ? 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

? *almost* never? ? 

The original intent was that they almost never claim they were actually mind controlled. I suppose it is also true that it is almost never true that they were actually mind-controlled.

[Scott Lloyd]

"RIP anti-Mormon literature"? How about BIH, anti-Mormon literature. 

[Calm]

Burn in hell?

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Burn in hell?

More fitting than "rest in peace" say I. 

[DemonsAway]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Because religious belief and/or faith is almost never based on rationality. I am convinced Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God but I am not convinced based on study of the gospel's historical accuracy and from a chain of reasoning leading to God existing. I am convinced because I have communed with the divine in my own frail mortal kind of way. I came away changed and convinced.

If conspiracy theorist based their conclusions that reptilians are mind controlling us all unless we wear tinfoil hats on having experienced being mind controlled by said aliens It would be analogous but that almost never happens. Instead the conspiracy theory is supposedly based on physical evidence and a logical chain of reasoning which is plainly fallacious and biased. Two different methods.

They have little in common unless the religious person is convinced mostly or entirely by ridiculous distortions or fabricated evidence. *cough*...believing creationism is science....*cough*

I agree they're different methods but that wasn't really the point I was making. I should've stated it differently but the point is that they both share those similarities of biases and misleading or limited data.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, DemonsAway said:

I agree they're different methods but that wasn't really the point I was making. I should've stated it differently but the point is that they both share those similarities of biases and misleading or limited data.

Which seems pointless in that most LDS who are convinced of the truth of the gospel are not primarily convinced by the data.

[clarkgoble]

15 hours ago, DemonsAway said:

Not meaning this to sound rude, but how is this different from any religion? Confirmation bias, misleading or limited data, sounds like every religion to me.

It certainly can be any religion. It can also be the critics of religion. My point is that people can take things up in an informed manner or they can embrace conspiracy thinking. Some like to think that only happens in religion. It doesn't.

[why me]

On 7/17/2017 at 11:56 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you've nailed it. 

The prime threat today is what Joseph Smith would have characterized as "false brethren". 

It's interesting how the battlefront has changed so much in such a short period of time. 

I have to say, listening to John is not that interesting. Too many why I left stories. After awhile, it no longer works. I think that it may have more to do with the fact that the crtiics have been rather successful in leading members away. However, the lds church has also made quite a defense of itself on social media, something that was not happening a few years back. I think that the church has been successful in challenging the critics and have now responded with great manuals for the teens etc.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, why me said:

I have to say, listening to John is not that interesting. Too many why I left stories. After awhile, it no longer works. I think that it may have more to do with the fact that the crtiics have been rather successful in leading members away. However, the lds church has also made quite a defense of itself on social media, something that was not happening a few years back. I think that the church has been successful in challenging the critics and have now responded with great manuals for the teens etc.

The exit stories from Dehlin et al do quickly grow tedious.

[why me]

The christian metanarrative has been under attack for many many years and it has certainly has had an affect on the religion, especially in the west. Mormons have now been under attack through social media, attempting to descontruct its metanarrative for quite a few years too. The goal was to descontruct christianity and with it mormonism. Such is relativism and secularism. However, there is one faith whose metanarrative is hardly ever challanged because of the repurcussions: Islam. Thus, it is a fast growing religion in Europe and in the world. And if the trend continues, it will eventually replace christianity in the west due to population growth and conversions. The book of mormon, the bible have all been dragged through the mud...but the Quran...no. It is untouchable because of the fear of coming into harms way.

http://www.politico.eu/article/ayaan-hirsi-ali-tackle-islam-or-face-civil-war/

[why me]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The exit stories from Dehlin et al do quickly grow tedious.

Nothing new in the attack and so, the attack becomes boring. Also, the church has countered and stole their thunder. I know of no other church that teaches its history as indepth as the lds do now. what more can the critics claim?

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/24/2017 at 3:21 PM, why me said:

Nothing new in the attack and so, the attack becomes boring. Also, the church has countered and stole their thunder. I know of no other church that teaches its history as indepth as the lds do now. what more can the critics claim?

They can do what the Church's critics have always done in the past. They can repeat the same old claims without taking cognizance of rebuttals that have already been given. Dan Peterson and Bill Hamblin characterized this phenomenon as "Bill and Dan's Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell."

Afterthought: In fact the Jeremy Runnells "Letter to a CES Direvctor" is merely an exasperating collection of Anti-Mormon zombie uprisings. There is nothing original or particularly thoughtful in it.

Call it "Night of the Living Dead: the Anti-Mormon Edition."

Edited August 27, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[why me]

On 8/25/2017 at 0:30 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

They can do what the Church's critics have always done in the past. They can repeat the same old claims without taking cognizance of rebuttals that have already been given. Dan Peterson and Bill Hamblin characterized this phenomenon as "Bill and Dan's Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell."

Afterthought: In fact the Jeremy Runnells "Letter to a CES Direvctor" is merely an exasperating collection of Anti-Mormon Zombie uprisings. There is nothing original or particularly thoughtful in it.

This is true. However, at least the rebuttals are now on the web for others to read. However, because of the lack of critical literacy among the lds, some will still fall away. If members would only look at books published in the past by church publishers one would find much of church history, for example, in the book Sacred Truths of the Doctrine and Covenants by Otten and Cladwell published in 1983. This book has Hyrum telling Joseph to write the revelation on plural marriage for Emma and Joseph's response that Emma would not believe it. Much is in church books.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, why me said:

This is true. However, at least the rebuttals are now on the web for others to read. However, because of the lack of critical literacy among the lds, some will still fall away. If members would only look at books published in the past by church publishers one would find much of church history, for example, in the book Sacred Truths of the Doctrine and Covenants by Otten and Cladwell published in 1983. This book has Hyrum telling Joseph to write the revelation on plural marriage for Emma and Joseph's response that Emma would not believe it. Much is in church books.

Agreed. 

I've said before that I've often found it curious that one who could not be bothered to crack open a book or journal (or, in this day and age, open an authoritative website) on Church history and doctrine before falling away from the Church, becomes a voracious consumer of all things anti-Mormon afterward. 

[Five Solas]

On 8/24/2017 at 2:30 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

They can do what the Church's critics have always done in the past. They can repeat the same old claims without taking cognizance of rebuttals that have already been given. Dan Peterson and Bill Hamblin characterized this phenomenon as "Bill and Dan's Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell."

Afterthought: In fact the Jeremy Runnells "Letter to a CES Direvctor" is merely an exasperating collection of Anti-Mormon zombie uprisings. There is nothing original or particularly thoughtful in it.

Call it "Night of the Living Dead: the Anti-Mormon Version."

Out of curiosity Scott - have you ever heard a criticism of the LDS Church you thought had merit?  An example where you thought the critic couldn't fairly be labeled a "zombie?" 

If yes--I'd be interested to know what & who it was. 

If no--your discerning readers might question who the real zombie is... 

;0)

--Erik

________________________________________________

I wanna burn the sky, I wanna burn the breeze
I wanna see the animals die in the trees
Oh let's go, let's go it's only 4 degrees

--Anohni, 2016

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

Out of curiosity Scott - have you ever heard a criticism of the LDS Church you thought had merit?  An example where you thought the critic couldn't fairly be labeled a "zombie?" 

If yes--I'd be interested to know what & who it was. 

If no--your discerning readers might question who the real zombie is... 

;0)

--Erik

________________________________________________

I wanna burn the sky, I wanna burn the breeze
I wanna see the animals die in the trees
Oh let's go, let's go it's only 4 degrees

--Anohni, 2016

Yet more humorlessness from the Church's critics.

And so it goes.

[Five Solas]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yet more humorlessness from the Church's critics.

And so it goes.

"And so it goes" was a favored expression of author Kurt Vonnegut, appearing frequently in his books Mother Night  and Slaughterhouse Five.  But I'm guessing you must have picked it up elsewhere.  I don't think anyone could be a Vonnegut fan and be quite so intolerant of differing views as you, Scott. 

And if you think I don't see some humor in this--you're wrong.

:0)

--Erik

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

"And so it goes" was a favored expression of author Kurt Vonnegut, appearing frequently in his books Mother Night  and Slaughterhouse Five.  But I'm guessing you must have picked it up elsewhere.  I don't think anyone could be a Vonnegut fan and be quite so intolerant of differing views as you, Scott. 

And if you think I don't see some humor in this--you're wrong.

:0)

--Erik

An anti-Mormon pontificating about intolerance?

That's rich.