General Conference

[Robert F. Smith]

On 4/5/2020 at 11:10 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone pointed out that today was Palm Sunday. This is a major liturgical day for Catholics and those who follow a liturgical calendar. I was unable to participate in Mass because of the coronavirus, but a neighbor down the street had palms for us, thanks be to God.

What do you think about President Nelson's call to fast on Good Friday coming on Palm Sunday? Is there a connection to traditional Christian liturgical calendars? Would that be a positive or negative thing?

During the morning session of LDS Conference (which was an official Solemn Assembly - miqra'-qodesh/'atseret/κλητή αγία/ εξόδιόν), Pres Nelson led us all in a Hosanna Shout, which he pointed out was the equivalent of waving palm fronds on Palm Sunday (those words were used) as the Savior entered Jerusalem.  So it was an explicitly liturgical occasion for the Saints worldwide.

These are normal references on a rare occasion.  Mormons are usually aware of Palm Sunday, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday, but do not often have special liturgical observances of them.  That is, no special Easter Sunrise Services, but special attention to the meaning of Easter during regular Sunday services.

[Kenngo1969]

22 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have met people I consider to be anti-Mormon because of their words and actions. I don’t know what else to call the mob that drove my great grandfather and his brothers from and burned their homes in Tennessee, killed two missionaries, and severely wounded the boys’ mother.  Any suggestions?

Yep, anti-Mormon is as anti-Mormon says and as anti-Mormon does!  One disagrees with me?  Fine.  Even if one disagrees with me about religion, still, that's a dog-bites-man story rather than its opposite.  The difference?  I'm willing to recognize that neither I nor anyone with whom I might disagree sees the world (or the word, which is what I originally wrote! ) as it is; rather, each of us sees the world as we are.  As a consequence of that, I'm willing to live-and-let-live.   And I would ask the person with whom I disagree and/or who disagrees with me, how about you?

Edited April 8, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have met people I consider to be anti-Mormon because of their words and actions. I don’t know what else to call the mob that drove my great grandfather and his brothers from and burned their homes in Tennessee, killed two missionaries, and severely wounded the boys’ mother.  Any suggestions?

Yes I do have a suggestion. Focus on the value and use of the term today to devalue people like me who don't agree with all things LDS. 

Thousands of Mennonites were tortured and killed for their faith. As a boy I was taught many of their stories which were horrific. Oh and with the stories, I was taught to forgive the perpetrators as a principle of the gospel. That is not easy to do. I remember being the headmaster of a Mennonite school during an accreditation visit. The head of the team was from a strictly Reformed school on the other side of the state. When we walked down to the large pond on our campus I commented to him that three hundred years ago he would have thrown me into the pond and killed me. He looked at me with astonishment in his eyes. I realized then that I had not learned my childhood lessons well. I have aspired to do better ever since. 

Edited April 7, 2020 by Navidad

[Robert F. Smith]

9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Yes I do have a suggestion. Focus on the value and use of the term today to devalue people like me who don't agree with all things LDS. ...............................

That is an unfortunate error by you, Phil.  Most people who do not agree with LDS religion actually share many LDS values -- especially in the area of honesty, probity, and the like.  Just because someone does not agree with LDS religion does not make them anti-Mormon.  Most of them are good, tolerant neighbors.  So it is an error to claim that LDS people call everyone anti-Mormon.  They simply do not, and have a very pleasant attitude toward non-Mormon folks like yourself, even when you make occasional false claims about us.  After all, we are likewise capable of mistakenly making false claims about you and your associates.  A little bit of mutual respect and tolerance goes a long way.

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

Yes I do have a suggestion. Focus on the value and use of the term today to devalue people like me who don't agree with all things LDS. 

Thousands of Mennonites were tortured and killed for their faith. As a boy I was taught many of their stories which were horrific. Oh and with the stories, I was taught to forgive the perpetrators as a principle of the gospel. 

Oddly enough, I recently received a notice from LDS FamilyTree that I have a deceased relative who is a candidate for temple work. His surname was familiar, but not one I recognized from our family tree, so I looked him up.Turns out he was the nephew of Reverend David Hinson, the infamous leader of the mob who drove my ancestors out of Tennessee, whose name I know from accounts of the Cane Creek massacre I have read. David was killed in the massacre by one of the LDS boys who was murdered.

I too have been taught to forgive our enemies as a fundamental principle of the Gospel. When the time comes, I will do the Hinsons’ temple work. I use the term anti-Mormon sparingly, reserving only it for those who wish harm on the Church or its members. I could never consider that you would ever do anything even remotely like that.

Edited April 8, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[rongo]

22 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Oh and with the stories, I was taught to forgive the perpetrators as a principle of the gospel. That is not easy to do. 

I think it's "David vs. Goliath," but the closing chapter of a Malcolm Gladwell book juxtaposes the crusading family behind California's "Three Strikes" law (relentless legal activism for putting people away for life upon a third crime, no matter how petty) with a horrific rape/murder of a Mennonite girl in Canada. The Mennonite community's example of coming together and forgiving the perpetrator is a shining example of forgiveness as taught in the New Testament (and the Book of Mormon). 

I always pictured Mennonites as akin to Amish, but more modern and cosmopolitan. Man, oh man, in Germany did Mennoniten were very active in opposing the Church, more so than Baptists or Pentacostals. I didn't resent it; they were actively preaching and acting on their faith in a non-hateful way. I just thought they were pretty much as pacific as the Amish in the Harrison Ford movie Witness before my mission.  

[Navidad]

Q: Is it true you grew up in an evangelical home?

A: Yeah. I grew up in southwestern Ontario in the heart of a Mennonite community. All my family are part of the Mennonite church. I joked at [the recent evangelical conference] Catalyst that I’m the only member of my family who had never delivered a sermon. Everyone has been to seminary, been a lay preacher; the list is very, very long in my extended family of people who have had opportunities to give a sermon. My joke at Catalyst was that it was my sermon; I finally got to give one.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I think it's "David vs. Goliath," but the closing chapter of a Malcolm Gladwell book juxtaposes the crusading family behind California's "Three Strikes" law (relentless legal activism for putting people away for life upon a third crime, no matter how petty) with a horrific rape/murder of a Mennonite girl in Canada. The Mennonite community's example of coming together and forgiving the perpetrator is a shining example of forgiveness as taught in the New Testament (and the Book of Mormon). 

I always pictured Mennonites as akin to Amish, but more modern and cosmopolitan. Man, oh man, in Germany did Mennoniten were very active in opposing the Church, more so than Baptists or Pentacostals. I didn't resent it; they were actively preaching and acting on their faith in a non-hateful way. I just thought they were pretty much as pacific as the Amish in the Harrison Ford movie Witness before my mission.  

Hi Rongo - Malcolm Gladwell comes from a Mennonite family in Ontario near where my father pastored prior to my birth. Here is a quote from an interview with him that I think is funny but typical. It demonstrates parallels between Mennonites and my LDS friends. Not all Mennonites are Evanglicals, but it sounds like his family might have been.

Q: Is it true you grew up in an evangelical home?

A: Yeah. I grew up in southwestern Ontario in the heart of a Mennonite community. All my family are part of the Mennonite church. I joked at [the recent evangelical conference] Catalyst that I’m the only member of my family who had never delivered a sermon. Everyone has been to seminary, been a lay preacher; the list is very, very long in my extended family of people who have had opportunities to give a sermon. My joke at Catalyst was that it was my sermon; I finally got to give one.

It would be interesting to look into the extreme opposition to the LDS missionaries from Mennonites in Germany. The Mennonites there are a relatively small community. I wonder if the LDS missionaries were proselytizing within the Mennonite community itself? That would be an interesting study. I know that some full-time Germany speaking LDS missionaries were sent among the Mennonites of one particular Mennonite community in Chihuahua some years ago. After a short period of time it seems (what I have been told) that the proselytizing mode shifted to a fellowship mode where the two groups shared services, choirs, etc. That is where it seems it is today.

Oh, and there are more differences between many Mennonites and the Amish today than just social conservatism. More Mennonites have been impacted by Evangelical influences and are more pre-millenial in their eschatology than previously.

Edited April 7, 2020 by Navidad

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi Rongo - Malcolm Gladwell comes from a Mennonite family in Ontario near where my father pastored prior to my birth. Here is a quote from an interview with him that I think is funny but typical. It demonstrates parallels between Mennonites and my LDS friends. Not all Mennonites are Evanglicals, but it sounds like his family might have been.

Q: Is it true you grew up in an evangelical home?

A: Yeah. I grew up in southwestern Ontario in the heart of a Mennonite community. All my family are part of the Mennonite church. I joked at [the recent evangelical conference] Catalyst that I’m the only member of my family who had never delivered a sermon. Everyone has been to seminary, been a lay preacher; the list is very, very long in my extended family of people who have had opportunities to give a sermon. My joke at Catalyst was that it was my sermon; I finally got to give one.

It would be interesting to look into the extreme opposition to the LDS missionaries from Mennonites in Germany. The Mennonites there are a relatively small community. I wonder if the LDS missionaries were proselytizing within the Mennonite community itself? That would be an interesting study. I know that some full-time Germany speaking LDS missionaries were sent among the Mennonites of one particular Mennonite community in Chihuahua some years ago. After a short period of time it seems (what I have been told) that the proselytizing mode shifted to a fellowship mode where the two groups shared services, choirs, etc. That is where it seems it is today.

It was at street displays. Mennonites would come right up and politely but firmly discuss why we were astray (typical evangelical talking points). It was all very respectful, but they were very active in this, in multiple cities. As you point out, the Mennonites are an even bigger minority than Mormons are in Germany, and I think this is what made them strong and confident (same applies to Mormons, too --- I think we're also stronger in a lot of ways when we're an extreme minority. I think we've gotten carried away with how many million nominal members we have). 

Seventh-day Adventists are even tinier in Germany, and I had very good experiences with them, but my grandparents served a mission in the Virgin Islands, where SDA are the dominant religion in some islands, and they were very arrogant and hostile there. 

I respect adamant opposition to us much more than the default setting of atheism and apathy. Better to care about the issues than not at all. 

[Kenngo1969]

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

Yes I do have a suggestion. Focus on the value and use of the term today to devalue people like me who don't agree with all things LDS. ...

I don't consider a sincere, devout practitioner of another faith to be anti-Mormon [sic] simply because his devotion is to another faith tradition.  What one sees depends on one's vantage point.  In order to come to any sort of a consensus, members of a jury considering a case must agree, generally, on the weight and significance of any given piece of evidence and/or on the evidence collectively.  In matters of faith, by contrast, we are all our own triers of fact: Each of us individually decides what evidence we will admit for our faith, what evidence we will exclude, and how much weight and what meaning we will give to each individual piece of evidence.

If a person who follows another faith tradition finds peace, joy, and fulfillment therein, more power to him!  And even if a person is not particularly religious but believes in doing unto others as he would have others do unto him, in alleviating suffering and in making life as good as he can make it for himself and for those around him before (from his perspective) succumbing to the void, more power to him.  An anti-Mormon, by contrast, usually seeks to tear down my faith by creating some sort of list of arbitrary criteria by which he defines the "true" or the "correct" faith, purporting to measure my faith against those criteria, and (Gasp! ) finding it wanting.

If someone were to ask, "Well, don't members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do the same thing?"  As I've told you before, I think that being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the best thing going, faith-wise, but I don't use that proposition as a stick with which to beat those of other faiths, and I think that's true of the vast majority of my fellow Latter-day Saints.  My standing before God is between God and me, and no one else; your standing before God is between God and you, and no one else; and another person's standing before God is between God and that person, and no one else.  If one has a question about his standing before God, he can always ask God about it.  That very same principle led to the theophany that is one of the foundational pillars of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Best to you and yours.  I wish you well.

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have met people I consider to be anti-Mormon because of their words and actions. I don’t know what else to call the mob that drove my great-grandfather, his brothers, and their families and neighbors from and burned their homes in Tennessee, killed two missionaries, and severely wounded the boys’ mother.  Any suggestions?

And still your great grandparents had the temerity to call these folks "anti-Mormon?"

Perhaps they needed a class in sensitivity training.  That epithet may have hurt their feelings! 😥

[Stargazer]

On 4/6/2020 at 3:05 AM, JAHS said:

According to Wiki,  "The poem was composed soon after Smith's death, and was later set to music and adopted as a hymn . It was first published anonymously in the church newspaper Times and Seasons in August 1844, approximately one month after Smith was killed. The LDS hymnal now uses a melody based on "Scotland the Brave" in honor of Phelps's Scottish heritage. The tune is modified to match the syllable count of the text."

 

Which is something I mentioned in my earlier post.

Phelps had suggested it be sung to the tune of "Star in the East": https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Star_in_the_east_solfege.ogg

Here's "Star in the East" sung a capella with the original (?) words. I'd never heard this tune/hymn before, and it's obviously a Christmas carol. It's possibly too solemn for "Praise to the Man." But it's a lovely tune. It might have been the dirgelike quality that Phelps was thinking about, since the poem was commemorating the death of the Prophet.

 

[Stargazer]

On 4/7/2020 at 5:15 AM, The Nehor said:

I got more than I expected. It was not a normal conference for me.

I can definitely appreciate this. But to me, GC is always special. I could say for each time that I get more than I expected, but then it would seem that my expectation is to get more than I expected. So, in a real sense, I got exactly what I expected!

[Calm]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And still your great grandparents had the temerity to call these folks "anti-Mormon?"

Chances are given historical usage the mob would have happily claimed the title for themselves:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mormonism

[Scott Lloyd]

On 4/6/2020 at 3:10 AM, mfbukowski said:

You can't say "colored people," that is highly derogatory and racist.

The new hip way to say it that the COOL and trendy and socially perfectly correct people say it is "people of color".

I mean if one cannot see the vast difference in phraseology between those two expressions, clearly they are racists.

Hmm. Kind of like it being politically incorrect to say “same-sex attraction” but politically correct to say “attraction to the same sex.”

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hmm. Kind of like it being politically incorrect to say “same-sex attraction” but politically correct to say “attraction to the same sex.”

Nuances of words generally are created by history of usage and not pulled out of some pristine language creator.

It should not be surprising, therefore, that slight alterations can make a big difference in perception (white vs. whitey for example).

Edited April 8, 2020 by Calm

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hmm. Kind of like it being politically incorrect to say “same-sex attraction” but politically correct to say “attraction to the same sex.”

Or...

Kind of like it being incorrect to say "Mormon" now but correct to say "Mormon" a few years ago.

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't consider a sincere, devout practitioner of another faith to be anti-Mormon [sic] simply because his devotion is to another faith tradition.  What one sees depends on one's vantage point.  In order to come to any sort of a consensus, members of a jury considering a case must agree, generally, on the weight and significance of any given piece of evidence and/or on the evidence collectively.  In matters of faith, by contrast, we are all our own triers of fact: Each of us individually decides what evidence we will admit for our faith, what evidence we will exclude, and how much weight and what meaning we will give to each individual piece of evidence.

If a person who follows another faith tradition finds peace, joy, and fulfillment therein, more power to him!  And even if a person is not particularly religious but believes in doing unto others as he would have others do unto him, in alleviating suffering and in making life as good as he can make it for himself and for those around him before (from his perspective) succumbing to the void, more power to him.  An anti-Mormon, by contrast, usually seeks to tear down my faith by creating some sort of list of arbitrary criteria by which he defines the "true" or the "correct" faith, purporting to measure my faith against those criteria, and (Gasp! ) finding it wanting.

If someone were to ask, "Well, don't members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do the same thing?"  As I've told you before, I think that being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the best thing going, faith-wise, but I don't use that proposition as a stick with which to beat those of other faiths, and I think that's true of the vast majority of my fellow Latter-day Saints.  My standing before God is between God and me, and no one else; your standing before God is between God and you, and no one else; and another person's standing before God is between God and that person, and no one else.  If one has a question about his standing before God, he can always ask God about it.  That very same principle led to the theophany that is one of the foundational pillars of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Best to you and yours.  I wish you well.

 

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

An anti-Mormon, by contrast, usually seeks to tear down my faith by creating some sort of list of arbitrary criteria by which he defines the "true" or the "correct" faith, purporting to measure my faith against those criteria, and (Gasp! ) finding it wanting.

If someone were to ask, "Well, don't members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do the same thing?"  As I've told you before, I think that being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the best thing going, faith-wise, but I don't use that proposition as a stick with which to beat those of other faiths, and I think that's true of the vast majority of my fellow Latter-day Saints. 

Good morning my friend.  Thanks for your kind and insightful reply to my post. As this is a dialogue forum, I guess it is my  turn to reply hopefully just as kindly and with as much insight. I am afraid to say this, but will out of the passion and regard I feel for my friends in the LDS church and for the faith itself. I was with you in your reply right up to the point I quoted above. Someone who is opposed to Mormonism and who has a need to convert Mormons to Christianity does all the things you mention. They find the Mormon faith wanting and thus are passionate about wanting Mormons to become something else - most often "a Christian." I reject these people and their premise. They do create artificial requirements and criteria that they don't levy on others. I reject that completely.

At the same time I would offer a counter-perspective on your last paragraph. "Don't members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do the same thing?" Your answer is no. My answer is "absolutely they do" and they do it with greater fervor, effort, and resource utilization that any fundamentalist Christian group has ever mustered in their attempts. You (plural) do use the proposition that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the best thing going, faith-wise and you do use that proposition as a stick with which to beat those of other Christian groups - and you do so way way way beyond what some lonely pitiful isolated fundamentalist does on a street corner in Mesa. How do I know that? Because I have been beat with that stick on numerous occasions. I know how it hurts.

I have learned through exposure that not all members interpret D&C 1:30 the same way, but those who interpret it exclusively, absolutely do use it to beat other Christians. I am nothing more than a partial Christian, a shell of the real thing. My baptism, confirmation, ordination, commitment, dedication, passion, belief means nothing in terms of my salvation or exaltation without being a Mormon. That is the biggest and unkindest stick with which you could and do hit me. You remove me from my core Christian faith. That is the great LDS blindspot. The fact that you could write the last two sentences you wrote with integrity, which I believe you do - I don't question that, can only cause me to come to the conclusion that you have a significant blind spot in the impact of the aspersion of my Christian (not Mennonite) faith has on me.

If an LDS missionary came and knocked on my door and found out I was a Christian of some strong conviction and maturity, shook my hand and walked away without believing that he "should have" converted me to be a Mormon, then I would take back everything I said in the above paragraph. Wouldn't it be great if he said to his partner, "Well that man was a complete Christian, nothing we could do for him." If and when I find out someone is a Mormon, that is what I say to myself, to my wife, or to them. That is what I have consistently said here.  I wouldn't try to convert a Mormon any more than I would a Methodist or a Catholic. Being a Christian isn't about the creeds, exaltation, or how many levels of heaven there are, is it? It is about accepting and serving the Savior! It is all about the atonement, resurrection and coming again of Christ, isn't it?

I believe folks when they tell me they are a Christian or a person of great faith.  End of story.  So I must respectfully but passionately disagree with your last paragraph. What you claim in your sentence that begins with "An anti-Mormon," about creating some sort of list of arbitrary criteria (a strict interpretation of D&C 1:30 is about as arbitrary as you can get) - it goes way way way beyond thinking the LDS faith is the best thing going - it means the LDS faith is the only thing going. Doesn't it? "By which he defines the "true" or the "correct" faith, purporting to measure my faith against those criteria, and (Gasp) finding it wanting" is exactly what you do!! I couldn't have said it better. I like being a Mennonite, not sure I would say it is the "best thing going" but it is good for me. I like it! It has nothing, zero, nada to do with being a Christian. It is the manner in which I express my Christian faith. Nothing more.  Some of you like to pin me down by postulating that I do the same thing with members of non-Christian groups - that I require them to become Christian like me to obtain eternal life. Well, the fact is I don't do that. I don't play judge. I am content to leave that to Christ, absent any mortal help. I believe in a wideness in God's mercy.

Ok, so while I am at irritating everyone I might as well finish strongly!  Ha! I believe that beginning in the 19th century and continuing today, the use of the term anti-Mormon was and is more than a noun, it was and is a slur. It is not simply a compound noun indicating the presence of a negative attitude about Mormonism. It is a slur. I cannot express how an African-American feels when he or she hears the N word used. But I can tell you that when I hear a member of the Church use the "anti" word about someone, especially for the express purpose of denigrating that person so lowly that any discussion is over, I am horrified. It is a slur - not a slight - a slur. It is a means to denigrate someone so badly that no one need take them or anything they say seriously. You are all so used to using it about certain kinds of people that you are immune to its impact. I can't debate its use when members were being killed or attacked physically for their faith, but I can certainly speak to its use today. It has no place in today's religious debate because it is a slur. Its intent is the same as any slur. I have said this while standing in front of large groups of Mormons, I will dare say it here. I will probably say it again somewhere once my meetings are rescheduled. I can't ask any of you to accept it; I only ask you to consider it. I say this as one who has felt the sting and rebuke contained in this slur. Please don't mock me by saying "it hurt my feelings." It is much more than that.

I have no hesitation in saying I have the highest regard and affection for the LDS faith and all it stands for.  Maybe that is what many of you don't understand about me. I don't love it like I love my wife, but I love it in the sense that I admire and cherish my associations with it. I love being a Christian like I love my wife. I don't love being a Mennonite. I admire and cherish the Mennonites in the same way I do the Mormons.

If my LDS friends came to me and said "Come join our faith, it is better than the Mennonite faith," I would most likely do so, tomorrow. I think I might agree. The challenge is they (you) don't do that. Instead, they (you) come to me and say, "Come join our faith, it is better, more complete, more valid than your Christian faith which is by its nature of not being us, different, deficit, incomplete, and less than us." You want to convert me from being a pseudo-Christian to being a complete Christian as can only be found in the LDS Church. That is a huge huge huge huge huge huge and one more - huge difference. It is some stick! Thanks for allowing me to dialogue with you.
 

Edited April 8, 2020 by Navidad

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Chances are given historical usage the mob would have happily claimed the title for themselves:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mormonism

I am quite honestly not talking about its historical usage. I am talking about its usage today!

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am quite honestly not talking about its historical usage. I am talking about its usage today!

Then perhaps you should avoid comments like "I believe that beginning in the 19th century..." because it confuses your focus, imo.

Having said that, I have run into some people who also happily claim the title for themselves these days, though it is wise not to assume someone does until they say so for themselves.

It is also not used in consistent enough ways, imo, to use casually, but if a person has expressed a desire to destroy the Church, I don't see an issue in labeling them an anti-Mormon any more than I would call someone promoting the destruction of Jews an anti-Semite.  But in general it is only such extremes I would label that way.

Edited April 8, 2020 by Calm

[The Nehor]

56 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I have learned through exposure that not all members interpret D&C 1:30 the same way, but those who interpret it exclusively, absolutely do use it to beat other Christians. I am nothing more than a partial Christian, a shell of the real thing. My baptism, confirmation, ordination, commitment, dedication, passion, belief means nothing in terms of my salvation or exaltation without being a Mormon. That is the biggest and unkindest stick with which you could and do hit me. You remove me from my core Christian faith. That is the great LDS blindspot. The fact that you could write the last two sentences you wrote with integrity, which I believe you do - I don't question that, can only cause me to come to the conclusion that you have a significant blind spot in the impact of the aspersion of my Christian (not Mennonite) faith has on me.

Is it more important how kind it is or how true it is?

[Navidad]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Then perhaps you should avoid comments like "I believe that beginning in the 19th century..." because it confuses your focus, imo.

Having said that, I have run into some people who also happily claim the title for themselves these days, though it is wise not to assume someone does until they say so for themselves.

It is also not used in consistent enough ways, imo, to use casually, but if a person has expressed a desire to destroy the Church, I don't see an issue in labeling them an anti-Mormon any more than I would call someone promoting the destruction of Jews an anti-Semite.  But in general it is only such extremes I would label that way.

Thanks, well said! You are right. I am mixing the historical use with its application today.

[Duncan]

On 4/7/2020 at 12:22 PM, Navidad said:

Q: Is it true you grew up in an evangelical home?

A: Yeah. I grew up in southwestern Ontario in the heart of a Mennonite community. All my family are part of the Mennonite church. I joked at [the recent evangelical conference] Catalyst that I’m the only member of my family who had never delivered a sermon. Everyone has been to seminary, been a lay preacher; the list is very, very long in my extended family of people who have had opportunities to give a sermon. My joke at Catalyst was that it was my sermon; I finally got to give one.

Hi Rongo - Malcolm Gladwell comes from a Mennonite family in Ontario near where my father pastored prior to my birth. Here is a quote from an interview with him that I think is funny but typical. It demonstrates parallels between Mennonites and my LDS friends. Not all Mennonites are Evanglicals, but it sounds like his family might have been.

Q: Is it true you grew up in an evangelical home?

A: Yeah. I grew up in southwestern Ontario in the heart of a Mennonite community. All my family are part of the Mennonite church. I joked at [the recent evangelical conference] Catalyst that I’m the only member of my family who had never delivered a sermon. Everyone has been to seminary, been a lay preacher; the list is very, very long in my extended family of people who have had opportunities to give a sermon. My joke at Catalyst was that it was my sermon; I finally got to give one.

It would be interesting to look into the extreme opposition to the LDS missionaries from Mennonites in Germany. The Mennonites there are a relatively small community. I wonder if the LDS missionaries were proselytizing within the Mennonite community itself? That would be an interesting study. I know that some full-time Germany speaking LDS missionaries were sent among the Mennonites of one particular Mennonite community in Chihuahua some years ago. After a short period of time it seems (what I have been told) that the proselytizing mode shifted to a fellowship mode where the two groups shared services, choirs, etc. That is where it seems it is today.

Oh, and there are more differences between many Mennonites and the Amish today than just social conservatism. More Mennonites have been impacted by Evangelical influences and are more pre-millenial in their eschatology than previously.

you're from Ontario? I'm in MB! born and raised! My Mum's father's family came from Glencoe, which is near London, they moved here in 1898

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Nuances of words generally are created by history of usage. ...

The essence of political correctness. 

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The essence of political correctness. 

Wrong.  This is the definition of politically correct (per Merriam-Webster):

conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The essence of political correctness. 

If I am wrong, I would be very interested to hear how you think meaning of language is created.

It can't be dictionaries as dictionaries don't add words or their meanings before they exist in the environment.

Edited April 8, 2020 by Calm