Scott Lloyd Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 5 hours ago, Navidad said: I am not sure that you two aren't being facetious, but let me assure you, the slinging about of the term anti-Mormon has done great harm to individual non-Mormons and to the Church as well. I have great respect for Scott's views and his staunch advocacy for the church, but down through the years the term anti-Mormon has done much damage as it has loosely been applied to everyone who disagrees with something in the Church. An apostate is a Mormon who disagrees. An anti-Mormon is a non-Mormon who disagrees. Hugh Nibley was a very smart man, but his treatises of anti-Mormons were not funny and did some harm to thoughtful non-Mormons. I never refer to someone who merely disagrees as anti-Mormon, nor am I aware of anyone who does. “Anti-“ connotes opposition, not merely disagreement. Can you not see the difference? To take an example, I disagree with some of the tenets of Catholicism. But I am not opposed to Catholicism. I am indifferent toward it.
Gray Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865581986/LDS-Church-pleased-with-positive-response-to-Im-a-Mormon-in-Great-Britain.html Quote “The ‘I’m a Mormon’ campaign gives people an opportunity to engage at whatever level they’d like to engage,” Adcock said. “The public and the media are being introduced to real Mormons, to regular members of the church, via the physical ads and online at mormon.org.uk.” 1
ttribe Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Cease the personal attack. There was nothing "personal"...I attacked an argument; or at least a method of argument. That being said, you issuing a command to me like that is beyond arrogant.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, SouthernMo said: How do you know it’s a personal attack? Against whom is this attack directed? Seems obvious it is directed at me. If I’m wrong, ttribe can clarify. I don’t believe I am. Edited October 11, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, ttribe said: There was nothing "personal"...I attacked an argument; or at least a method of argument. That being said, you issuing a command to me like that is beyond arrogant. It seemed to me you were accusing me, without naming me, of “gaslighting.” Did you have someone else in mind? Or were you not thinking of anyone in particular? If I’m being personally attacked, I’m entitled to tell the attacker to stop it. Edited October 11, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
ttribe Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It seemed to me you were accusing me, without naming me, of “gaslighting.” Did you have someone else in mind? Or were you not thinking of anyone in particular. If I’m being personally attacked, I’m entitled to tell the attacker to stop it. Like I already said, I was attacking an argument. Yes, it was your argument. But, does that mean you, the person, are inseparable from your argument? If so, that would explain a few things. You may consider yourself entitled to do whatever you want, but since I wasn't actually engaging in any kind of personal attack your "command" was pointless. Edited October 10, 2018 by ttribe 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, ttribe said: Like I already said, I was attacking an argument. Yes, it was your argument. But, does that mean you, the person, are inseparable from your argument? If so, that would explain a few things. You may consider yourself entitled to do whatever you want, but since I wasn't actually engaging in any kind of personal attack your "command" was pointless. So you were indeed accusing me of “gaslighting” then, a particularly unsavory charge. What if you had used the word “lying” instead? Would you think me unreasonable to regard it as a personal attack? What if the accusation had been that I was inflicting psychological manipulation, which is what “gaslighting” means? And why do you put quotes around “command”? It was you, not I, who used that word. Edited October 10, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Rich Hansen Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Cease the personal attack. I am sure it feels personal. However, I think posters, myself included, are just perplexed by the logic you use to defend. It comes across as reflexive rather than reflective. It seems that in your world, the church is right no matter what. I guess it works for you, but most people don't/can't operate that way. 1
ttribe Posted October 11, 2018 Posted October 11, 2018 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: So you were indeed accusing me of “gaslighting” then, a particularly unsavory charge. What if you had used the word “lying” instead? Would you think me unreasonable to regard it as a personal attack? What if the accusation had been that I was inflicting psychological manipulation, which is what “gaslighting” means? And why do you put quotes around “command”? It was you, not I, who used that word. Would your feelings be less hurt had I said "revisionist history" rather than "gaslighting"? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 11, 2018 Posted October 11, 2018 54 minutes ago, ttribe said: Would your feelings be less hurt had I said "revisionist history" rather than "gaslighting"? It would have been just as false, though maybe not as personally accusatory.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 11, 2018 Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Rich Hansen said: I am sure it feels personal. However, I think posters, myself included, are just perplexed by the logic you use to defend. It comes across as reflexive rather than reflective. It seems that in your world, the church is right no matter what. I guess it works for you, but most people don't/can't operate that way. I sssure you that my thinking was very reflective. What seems ill considered and reactionary is the notion that the Church was promoting the term Mormon. I have explained the distinction between that and promoting the public image of those whom society often calls “Mormon.” I regret that you are perplexed, but I think I have been clear. And I reject your criticism that in my “world,” the Church is “right, no matter what.” That’s not a fair or accurate assumption, nor is it a reasonable conclusion. Edited October 11, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted October 11, 2018 Posted October 11, 2018 2 hours ago, Gray said: The ‘I’m a Mormon’ campaign gives people an opportunity to engage at whatever level they’d like to engage,” Adcock said. “The public and the media are being introduced to real Mormons, to regular members of the church, via the physical ads and online at mormon.org.uk.” Notice it says “the public and the media are being introduced to real Mormons, to regular members of the Church.” It doesn’t say they are being introduced to the name “Mormon.” Presumably they are already acquainted with the name.
Calm Posted October 11, 2018 Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Notice it says “the public and the media are being introduced to real Mormons, to regular members of the Church.” It doesn’t say they are being introduced to the name “Mormon.” Presumably they are already acquainted with the name. I agree with you what the intent was, but an additional effect was to publicized (in the sense of the public just seeing it more, not intentional promotion) the word/label "Mormon" itself, intended or not. There were likely people who had considered "Mormon" a relatively rare encounter in their vocabulary exposure, perhaps even new in some parts of the world (not sure how global the campaign was, though it had many nonAmerican members posting profiles), who then saw the word as much more common in their environment or personal usage. A similar thing happened when Romney ran and "Mormon" was not intentionally paired at all in his campaign as far as I could tell. It came up because of others' interest. If one thinks of a thing more often, of course one will be thinking of the label one has for that word more often as well. Edited October 11, 2018 by Calm
Gray Posted October 11, 2018 Posted October 11, 2018 44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Notice it says “the public and the media are being introduced to real Mormons, to regular members of the Church.” It doesn’t say they are being introduced to the name “Mormon.” Presumably they are already acquainted with the name. It's a serious effort to brand the name "Mormon" positively, associating it with diversity and simple, sincere faith in God. Just look at it. Mormon is the dominant word in this campaign. 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 11, 2018 Posted October 11, 2018 On 10/9/2018 at 5:12 PM, JAHS said: It was a course correction but at a time that God wanted the course to be corrected. So the Lord wanted his church to go off course?
JAHS Posted October 11, 2018 Posted October 11, 2018 3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: So the Lord wanted his church to go off course? Nope, but being fallible human beings we let it go off course a little. Our prophets are not perfect. God does not take over their brain and make them do and say everything perfectly.
sunstoned Posted October 11, 2018 Posted October 11, 2018 4 hours ago, Gray said: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865581986/LDS-Church-pleased-with-positive-response-to-Im-a-Mormon-in-Great-Britain.html Apparently all of this is just a big win for Satan. I really wished that Nelson would have racketed back the rhetoric a little bit in his talk. He could have got his point across just fine without all the over the top Satan talk. His talk effectively threw all past prophets under the bus. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 11, 2018 Posted October 11, 2018 1 hour ago, Calm said: I agree with you what the intent was, but an additional effect was to publicized (in the sense of the public just seeing it more, not intentional promotion) the word/label "Mormon" itself, intended or not. There were likely people who had considered "Mormon" a relatively rare encounter in their vocabulary exposure, perhaps even new in some parts of the world (not sure how global the campaign was, though it had many nonAmerican members posting profiles), who then saw the word as much more common in their environment or personal usage. A similar thing happened when Romney ran and "Mormon" was not intentionally paired at all in his campaign as far as I could tell. It came up because of others' interest. If one thinks of a thing more often, of course one will be thinking of the label one has for that word more often as well. Be that as it may, my dispute with Rockpond is over his assertion that the Church spent “millions of dollars” to “promote the Mormon name.” That was not the intent, as you rightly acknowledge here, any more than the Church taking out ads in “Playbill” was intended to boost the Book of Mormon musical. 1
sunstoned Posted October 11, 2018 Posted October 11, 2018 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I sssure you that my thinking was very reflective. What seems ill considered and reactionary is the notion that the Church was promoting the term Mormon. I have explained the distinction between that and promoting the public image of those whom society often calls “Mormon.” I regret that you are perplexed, but I think I have been clear. And I reject your criticism that in my “world,” the Church is “right, no matter what.” That’s not a fair or accurate assumption, nor is it a reasonable conclusion. With this logic why would the Mormon Tab Choir need to change it's name? The term "Mormon" is not being promoted, it is just a public promotion of a choir that society often calls Mormon.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 11, 2018 Posted October 11, 2018 1 minute ago, sunstoned said: With this logic why would the Mormon Tab Choir need to change it's name? The term "Mormon" is not being promoted, it is just a public promotion of a choir that society often calls Mormon. That’s a non sequitur. The name was changed as part of an overall effort to cut back on the use of Mormon as an identifier because “Mormon” has come to overshadow the name and identity of Christ as it relates to His Church.
sunstoned Posted October 11, 2018 Posted October 11, 2018 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: That’s a non sequitur. The name was changed as part of an overall effort to cut back on the use of Mormon as an identifier because “Mormon” has come to overshadow the name and identity of Christ as it relates to His Church. The expensive "I'm a Mormon" campaign did a lot to promote the name Mormon. That is a fact. That is all Rockpond and others are saying. The church changed its mind. That is obviously what has happened. A change of course. Nothing wrong with this. Corporations do this all the time. Where the problems come in is when this marketing change is elevated to the level of a revelation and non-adherence is equated to being in league with Satan. That essentially throws under the bus any past prophet who used or allowed to be used the term Mormon. Which is basically all the past prophets, including Joseph Smith. 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 11, 2018 Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, sunstoned said: That essentially throws under the bus any past prophet who used or allowed to be used the term Mormon. Only if God told them not to and they did it anyway. Past prophets aren't accountable for not knowing current instructions. As someone formerly affiliated with the Church, you should know this. Edited October 11, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan 1
sunstoned Posted October 11, 2018 Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Only if God told them not to and they did it anyway. Past prophet aren't accountable for not knowing current instructions. As someone formerly affiliated with the Church, you should know this. Perhaps, but I am one of those people who do not believe that every utterance from a G.A. is the word of god. I have no problem with the church deciding that it wants to sunset the term mormon. In fact, I think it is a good idea. As mentioned in a post up stream, this is a common marketing re-branding decision that many corporations make. So make the change. Nelson could have announce this and asked all to comply. That would be all that would be needed. But he went for the dramatic and brought God and Satan into it. And by doing so threw 180 years of leadership under the bus. I do not believe for one minute that god would allow a prophet to spend millions promoting "I am a Mormon" campain just to come back three years later and say this must stop because it is a victory for Satan. This is ridiculous, and for people from the outside looking in, this starts to look a little schizophrenic. Edited October 11, 2018 by sunstoned 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 11, 2018 Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, sunstoned said: Perhaps, but I am one of those people who do not believe that every utterance from a G.A. is the word of god. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it has been my impression that you don't believe that any utterance from a General Authority is the word of God. Quote But he went for the dramatic and brought God and Satan into it. That ... or God really is in this. That you don't believe so may tell us more about your attitude towards God and prophets than about what really has happened in this case. People who do believe in both God and prophets can surely be excused for reaching a different conclusion. Quote And by doing so threw 180 years of leadership under the bus. I suspect this throwaway line may work somewhat better in critical forums than it does here. As I explained above -- and will now repeat -- we don't believe that God holds past prophets accountable for things He may say to their successors. Quote I do not believe for one minute that god would allow a prophet to spend millions promoting "I am a Mormon" campain just to come back three years later and say this must stop because it is a victory for Satan. Which God do you have in mind? Quote This is ridiculous, and for people from the outside looking in, this starts to look a little schizophrenic. Well, at least you understand how I frequently feel, then, when I browse apostate forums. Edited October 11, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan 2
sunstoned Posted October 11, 2018 Posted October 11, 2018 5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it has been my impression that you don't believe that any utterance from a General Authority is the word of God. That ... or God really is in this. That you don't believe so may tell us more about your attitude towards God and prophets than about what really has happened in this case. People who do believe in both God and prophets can surely be excused for reaching a different conclusion. I suspect this throwaway line may work somewhat better in critical forums than it does here. As I explained above -- and will now repeat -- we don't believe that God holds past prophets accountable for things He may say to their successors. Which God do you have in mind? Well, at least you understand how I frequently feel, then, when I browse apostate forums. Nice response. It's right out of apologetic 101: when your position is indefensible, attack the messenger.
Recommended Posts