Jump to content

Where Have All the Anti's Gone?


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

That would be fun as long as you allow me to respond with my full arsenal of anti-Catholicism. :) 

It'll be a battle as to who can be most anti! ;) 

Link to post
22 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

When LDS use the term "anti-Mormon" among themselves, is it ever not pejorative? It appears to be pejorative.

Yes, I think "anti-Mormon" can be, and often is, used more in a descriptive, clinical way.  It's more convenient than, say, "people who are actively critical of and opposed to the Church, its doctrines, leaders and/or members."

To be sure, there can be a pejorative aroma to it, just as there is to "anti-Muslim," "anti-Catholic," "anti-Jewish," etc.

I am reminded of a scene from  A Man for All Seasons, where Will Roper asked Sir Thomas More for permission to marry More’s daughter:

Quote

More: Roper, the answer is no and will be no as long as you’re a heretic.

Roper: Now that’s a word I don’t like, sir Thomas.

More: It’s not a likable word; it’s not a likable thing.

Yep.

Quote

While I obviously disagree with some LDS doctrines and practices, I wouldn't consider myself to be anti-Mormon.

Nor would I.  I disagree with some Catholic doctrines and practices, but that disagreement A) is largely inchoate and latent, and B) arises mostly in the context of comparing and contrasting what I believe with other belief systems.  I don't consider myself "anti-Catholic."

"Disagreement" is not synonymous with "active opposition."

Quote

I'm one of your "woke" allies ;)  However, I have no problems expressing my disagreements if the situation were appropriate, such as someone asking questions.  I also might try to dissuade someone from becoming LDS. I don't think that's an unreasonable position for a religious person to have.

I agree.

Quote

Maybe civility and respect is the key here. I would express my disagreements with civility and respect to your beliefs, so perhaps that's why I don't consider myself anti.

Civility and respect certainly go a long way.

Quote

If you all want, I could take up the role of traditional anti-Mormon for a couple of weeks if it would make things a little more exciting for all you brainwashed cult members :P  

Loki to our Thor, eh? ;)

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 4
Link to post
On 7/29/2020 at 3:13 PM, MiserereNobis said:

When LDS use the term "anti-Mormon" among themselves, is it ever not pejorative? It appears to be pejorative.

While I obviously disagree with some LDS doctrines and practices, I wouldn't consider myself to be anti-Mormon. I'm one of your "woke" allies ;)  However, I have no problems expressing my disagreements if the situation were appropriate, such as someone asking questions. I also might try to dissuade someone from becoming LDS. I don't think that's an unreasonable position for a religious person to have. If a Catholic friend said they were thinking about talking to the LDS missionaries, I don't think it would be "anti" of me to point out things I disagree with. Likewise, I wouldn't consider it anti-Catholic if an LDS person aired his/her disagreements about Catholicism to an LDS person wanting to explore becoming Catholic.

Maybe civility and respect is the key here. I would express my disagreements with civility and respect to your beliefs, so perhaps that's why I don't consider myself anti. If an LDS person said, "don't join the Catholics because that is the church of the devil led by Satan himself, the harlot of Babylon!" (I'm looking at you RevTestament, ha) I might consider that to be anti-Catholic. But if this person said, "let's talk about apostasy and priesthood authority as reasons why you shouldn't join the Catholic Church" I think that's perfectly reasonable and civil.

I do remember when I first started visiting this board that there were a lot more non-LDS people who would attack LDS beliefs. It's been awhile since that's happened. It was interesting at first, but ultimately turned out to be banal. It was funny when some new critic would show up guns blazing and everyone would just kinda roll their eyes. Now the criticisms mainly come from current or former members.

If you all want, I could take up the role of traditional anti-Mormon for a couple of weeks if it would make things a little more exciting for all you brainwashed cult members :P  

 

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I think "anti-Mormon" can be, and often is, used more in a descriptive, clinical way.  It's more convenient than, say, "people who are actively critical of and opposed to the Church, its doctrines, leaders and/or members."

To be sure, there can be a pejorative aroma to it, just as there is to "anti-Muslim," "anti-Catholic," "anti-Jewish," etc.

I am reminded of a scene from  A Man for All Seasons, where Will Roper asked Sir Thomas More for permission to marry More’s daughter:

Yep.

Nor would I.  I disagree with some Catholic doctrines and practices, but that disagreement A) is largely inchoate and latent, and B) arises mostly in the context of comparing and contrasting what I believe with other belief systems.  I don't consider myself "anti-Catholic."

"Disagreement" is not synonymous with "active opposition."

I agree.

Civility and respect certainly go a long way.

Loki to our Thor, eh? ;)

-Smac

An example I sometimes use: I disagree with the claims of the London Flat Earth Society, but I am not anti- (opposed to) them. I am, in fact, indifferent toward them. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1
Link to post

The Christ Presbyterian Church of Magna, Utah posted this recently, anti stuff still going on from the non LDS Christians apparently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsVM89lM0tQ&fbclid=IwAR150Ui-bv0TKwgT8UkExLCS7RSqlXSIQB-QA7lpsQEl9YVw13mkV8PVo54

And if one misses those discussions that took place on Mormon Dialogue back in the day, here's a conversation between Alma Allred (member) and Dr. James White (Evangelical).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxdyv6W4gME

 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post

Jana Riess wrote an interesting article about this, it can be found here:

https://religionnews.com/2017/07/11/rip-anti-mormon-literature/

I'm surprised no one has mentioned it already. To repeat what others are saying, the challenges not just to the church but faith in general are larger and different. Being secular instead of sectarian. Also, on a more positive note I also agree that our defenses and apologetic responses are getting more advanced and compelling each year for those that take the time to read them. 

Finally, although the evidence overall is mixed and in dispute, in some quarters evangelical fundamentalists are losing ground, the biggest example being the consistent declines in the membership of the SBC. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
On 7/29/2020 at 6:36 PM, Duncan said:

I may have made this observation before and Smac97 brought it up on a previous post but it seems that 20 years ago it was Evangelicals who were the big threat to the Church, I remember Elder Oaks' April 1998 conference talk about being saved. It was in anticipation of the SBC doing missionary work in Utah that year. Now, it is all these ex members who seem to be the big thing. The Evangelicals have taken a backseat. Smac97 mentioned that Evangelicals talk about the same thing over and over but ex members who an "in" with the culture like Bishops' interviews, missions, Temple work etc. Now,what caused all these members to flip out and go against the church? not that every former member does that obviously but what?

This has been my observation. This forum is actually more protected from the brunt of this kind of activity, critics here don't last if they don't know how to engage without crossing lines of civility. They are also more savvy than what you find on other forums. 

I took a many years break from this forum and joined another one that touted itself as being less constricted, but after many years of so much 'freedom', the faithful members were mostly all either banned or driven away, by the the piling on and harassment of growing ranks of ex, former and dissenting members, plus an ever increasing number of crazies trying to gain followers for their own private brand of  'Mormonism'.

I've observed that critics have various motivations,  and I believe as we see a polarization of society we see the same thing in the church, it has been growing the last 20 years. In my opinion, the real danger today comes from dissenting and former church critics, as it did in Joseph Smith's day, not from members of other faiths, who were for decades the most prevalent and effective adversary.

  • Like 4
Link to post
11 minutes ago, alter idem said:

This has been my observation. This forum is actually more protected from the brunt of this kind of activity, critics here don't last if they don't know how to engage without crossing lines of civility. They are also more savvy than what you find on other forums. 

I took a many years break from this forum and joined another one that touted itself as being less constricted, but after many years of so much 'freedom', the faithful members were mostly all either banned or driven away, by the the piling on and harassment of growing ranks of ex, former and dissenting members, plus an ever increasing number of crazies trying to gain followers for their own private brand of  'Mormonism'.

I've observed that critics have various motivations,  and I believe as we see a polarization of society we see the same thing in the church, it has been growing the last 20 years. In my opinion, the real danger today comes from dissenting and former church critics, as it did in Joseph Smith's day, not from members of other faiths, who were for decades the most prevalent and effective adversary.

yeah, i'm debating, sort of, a guy who as you say has his private brand of the Church, he's ultra one way and everyone who disagrees with him is an apostate apparently. People like that I can see leaving the Church. They "fly to pieces like glass" when they come across something that is right but against what they thought

  • Like 3
Link to post
On 7/28/2020 at 11:34 PM, Nemesis said:

I banned them all for making us defend the indefensible and having such sophisticated arguments  that could not be refuted.  
 

Nemesis

Good job, it would seem they are got tired of breaking the rules, and seemed to have given up “the bad fight”, also frustrated that we knew, or could “read them from a mile away”. Or I hope we also had a hand in their disappearance from this and other sites. I know at times you must feel you have a “thankless job”, but we DO thank you.It is nice to have a place, where we can debate, and even disagree in peace. 

Link to post
7 hours ago, Duncan said:

yeah, i'm debating, sort of, a guy who as you say has his private brand of the Church, he's ultra one way and everyone who disagrees with him is an apostate apparently. People like that I can see leaving the Church. They "fly to pieces like glass" when they come across something that is right but against what they thought

It has been my overall view of life, that those who take the “hardest stance” (when it comes to Faith), are the ones who “break the hardest”. Or to use your term, “fly to pieces like glass”, and then they feel the need to make those who disagree with them suffer the same fate. Then when they are unable to do so, they shatter all over again. They do so to the point, that only a rebirth back into Faith can put them back together again. If not, they are left ably to themselves, to “kick against the pricks”, to borrow from scripture.

  • Like 2
Link to post
On 7/29/2020 at 10:11 PM, Urloony said:

Yes, I'm remembering that now.  There were several prayer requests through the forum for him at that time.

As I prayed for him as well, no matter how badly he acted, I still wish that no one dies. Nor for his blameless wife to suffer over someone she truly loved. 

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...