Questions for Droopy re: "Anti-Mormons" v. Non-Mormons

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

My definition is simpler. An antiMormon is anyone who accurately quotes the Mormon church about its own doctirines and practices.

FTFY

[_Kevin Graham]

An anti-Mormon is someone who holds theological/social/moral/cultural views different than those claimed as true by the Church and who actively, ether in a professional or non-professional capacity - attacks, impugns, and defames the Church, its ideas, its leaders and/or members, who actively seeks opportunities to do so, and who has placed him/herself in a position of opposition to the Church; not just a difference of viewpoint, but a position of active counter influence and criticism.

My definition is simpler. An antiMormon is anyone who intentionally lies about or negatively sensationalizes about the Church.

So it is possible for a critic of the Church to not be an antiMormon under this definition. But such are few and far between.

And yet, the only examples of anti-Mormon that fit this definition are generally the usual punching bag types from the old school Evangelical crowd: Martin, Decker, Baer, Ankerberg, etc.

For example, you have never demonstrated how I, or most other frequently labeled "anti-Mormons" on this forum have "lied", intentionally or not, about the Church.

But what would you call an apologist who intentionally lies about the Church? I've demonstrated that this happens more frequently than believers would like to admit. So why do they get a free pass?

[_bcspace]

For example, you have never demonstrated how I, or most other frequently labeled "anti-Mormons" on this forum have "lied", intentionally or not, about the Church.

Actually Kevin, I enjoy reading your antiLDS diatribes. They are sometimes a difficult puzzle. When you lie or negatively sensationalize about the Church and I see it, I'll let you know. Perhaps one example right off the bat is Book of Abraham criticism without acknowledging the the significance and possibilities in the missing papyri.

[_Kevin Graham]

I should add that Loran's belief and attitude is very similar to that instituted in a number of Muslim communities/countries. Technically one can hold a negative opinion of Muhammed, but one is not permitted to express such an opinion without being held accountable. By simply being a non-Muslim in a Muslim country, the community is to forever be on their guard because your mere presence represents a threat to the sanctity of the community. This is why some Muslims refuse to touch a dirty Kaffir (unbeliever), or if they do, they'll wash their hands immediately. It is why a kaffir's testimony is worthless under Islamic law, no matter how many witnesses support it. Droopy's mindset is similar to this. Non-Mormons are only treated with respect to the extent that they express absolute ignorance about the Mormon faith. Ignorance is a missionary-minded member's best friend. But once it becomes clear the person is not going to convert, and has in fact come to the opposite conclusion, well then droopy will do what most Mormons do, and dispense with them and move on to the next potential victim. The more ignorant they are the better it is for the Mormon. They know their chances of gaining a convert plummets as the knowledge level increases among those in their teaching pool.

[_bcspace]

My definition is simpler. An antiMormon is anyone who intentionally lies about or negatively sensationalizes about the Church.

FTFY

Where?

[_bcspace]

I should add that Loran's belief and attitude is very similar to that instituted in a number of Muslim communities/countries. Technically one can hold a negative opinion of Muhammed, but one is not permitted to express such an opinion without being held accountable. By simply being a non-Muslim in a Muslim country, the community is to forever be on their guard because your mere presence represents a threat to the sanctity of the community. This is why some Muslims refuse to touch a dirty Kaffir (unbeliever), or if they do, they'll wash their hands immediately. It is why a kaffir's testimony is worthless under Islamic law, no matter how many witnesses support it. Droopy's mindset is similar to this. Non-Mormons are only treated with respect to the extent that they express absolute ignorance about the Mormon faith. Ignorance is a missionary-minded member's best friend. But once it becomes clear the person is not going to convert, and has in fact come to the opposite conclusion, well then droopy will do what most Mormons do, and dispense with them and move on to the next potential victim. The more ignorant they are the better it is for the Mormon. They know their chances of gaining a convert plummets as the knowledge level increases among those in their teaching pool.

What Kevin is implying is that the more someone knows about the negitve aspects of LDS history etc, as opposed to actual doctrine, the more one is likely to not be interested. I've not seen this very much, if at all, in real life. What usually happens is more doctrinal, a person decides they can't or don't want to go to Church regularly, or live the WoW or Law of Chastity or pay tithing.

Where Kevin displays his shear antiMormonism is in his Muslim comparison, the yellow journalistic implication that nonMormons would be threatened when among Mormons. At first, it's just Droopy's mindset. But then it's what "most Mormons do". So yes, Kevin Graham is an antiMormon under my definition.

[_Kevin Graham]

For example, you have never demonstrated how I, or most other frequently labeled "anti-Mormons" on this forum have "lied", intentionally or not, about the Church.

Actually Kevin, I enjoy reading your antiLDS diatribes. They are sometimes a difficult puzzle. When you lie or negatively sensationalize about the Church and I see it, I'll let you know. Perhaps one example right off the bat is Book of Abraham criticism without acknowledging the the significance and possibilities in the missing papyri.

Even if true, how is this a "lie"?

I've always acknowledged that Facsimile 3 is missing, but the evidence strongly suggests that whatever is "missing" from the papyri collection has no significance because all historic and textual evidence points to the extant portions being the catalyst by which Joseph Smith purported to translate the Book of Abraham.

So no, I don't just take it for granted that because a known tiny portion is missing, that this means there must be tons more, and that all the other evidence pointing to the extant portions gets thrown out the window. The fact that we don't have all that Joseph Smith had is rendered irrelevant to the argument at hand, which is simply this: Joseph Smith "translated" Egyptian characters and produced an Abraham narrative that has absolutely nothing to do with those characters.

So no, I haven't ignored this. I've addressed it repeatedly and have even pointed out that the more "missing material" the apologist postulates, the more significant the extant material becomes, since all the historical evidence points to it. So for example, if we propose that Joseph Smith had 500 feet of scroll, or better yet, ten thousand feet of scroll at his disposal, well then this means that the extant portion represents less than 1% of the available material. And yet, all the historical and textual evidence somehow refers to nothing of the other 99%?!?! No, instead they directly or indirectly point to that tiny 1% that is extant, which further highlights their importance for Joseph Smith.

The apologist is digging his own grave on this one. The more missing material he invents, the more he needs to explain why Joseph Smith was showing off and translating that tiny piece that supposedly had nothing to do with the Book of Abraham.

[_Buffalo]

Where Kevin displays his shear antiMormonism is in his Muslim comparison, the yellow journalistic implication that nonMormons would be threatened when amomg Mormons.

[_Kevin Graham]

What Kevin is implying is that the more someone knows about the negitve aspects of LDS history etc, as opposed to actual doctrine, the more one is likely to not be interested.

Not at all. People don't care about "official doctrine" according to bcspace. You're on the fringe on that one and you know it. Most Mormons I know don't make the distinctions you do. I have already shown that this is a relatively recent apologetic tactic in order to get away from embarrassing teachings of the Church. The funny thing is that some people like you actually think this apologetic maneuvering does anything to persuade those who aren't already apologists. If someone finds out that Brigham Young believed people lived in the sun, and yet proclaimed to be a true prophet, does it really matter to them that it was never canonized as official doctrine? No, of course not. And you know it, which is why you guys hate it when we state facts like these. You know you have no chance in hell trying to persuade someone that these things have no significance unless they were canonized as "official." It is why so much of the Temple has to be "sacred" in order to keep it secret. If Americans knew just what Mormons did in the temple, they'd never join. They'd see it for the bat-shit craziness that it really is. So you have to keep them ignorant, the same way Scientologists keep their prospective converts ignorant.

I've not seen this very much, if at all, in real life. What usually happens is more doctrinal, a person decides they can't or don't want to go to Church regularly, or live the WoW or Law of Chastity or pay tithing.

That's what the Church wants you to believe, and it is fostered by the behind the scenes gossip at Church.

Where Kevin displays his shear antiMormonism is in his Muslim comparison, the yellow journalistic implication that nonMormons would be threatened when among Mormons.

That's not what I said. I was referring to the mentality of "us vs them." Muslims treat non-Muslims as prospective converts the same way Mormons do. They'll coddle up to you and be your best friend until they find out you're not persuaded. Then you're cast into the "unbeliever" category, someone who wasn't spiritual enough to see the light.

At first, it's just Droopy's mindset. But then it's what "most Mormons do". So yes, Kevin Graham is an antiMormon under my definition.

So you've already had to change your definition of anti-Mormon? Where have I "lied"? What I say is from experience, it isn't a lie.

[_MsJack]

1. A non-Mormon is self explanatory, no? It is someone who is simply not a member of the Church.

Not entirely. For example, Warren Jeffs is not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I wouldn't call him a "non-Mormon." Personally, I would define a non-Mormon as someone who does not believe in any of the traditions that claim descent from the teachings of Joseph Smith.

2. An anti-Mormon is someone who holds theological/social/moral/cultural views different than those claimed as true by the Church and who actively, ether in a professional or non-professional capacity - attacks, impugns, and defames the Church, its ideas, its leaders and/or members, who actively seeks opportunities to do so, and who has placed him/herself in a position of opposition to the Church; not just a difference of viewpoint, but a position of active counter influence and criticism.

Fair enough. Since I don't meet your definition of an "anti-Mormon" in this sense, will you be withdrawing your accusations to that effect?

2.1 At a deeper level, and ideas, concepts, or doctrines which are incompatible, incongruous, and inharmonious with the gospel of Jesus Christ are "anti" in the sense of leading human beings away from God and from salvation and exhalation. Any doctrine or teaching that is makes claims counter to those of the gospel are "contra" or "anti" in nature, in a gospel sense. This sense, however, need not encompass active, open opposition or hostility, which would place it beyond the scope of point 2.

Which also sounds fair enough, but I think it is a bad idea to describe people and ideas that qualify for 2.1 as "anti-Mormon" because of the potential for conflation with 2.

Many of the doctrines of the gospel are "contra" to those of these other systems, and in that sense I, or any other LDS must be considered as "opposed" to those doctrines, but - and this is key - in intellectual and spiritual terms based upon the principles that underlie the spreading of the gospel. This means that, while I would, as a missionary, make every civil attempt to persuade members of these other religions to "come unto Christ," I would never publish books, lectures, or make a practice of posting anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, anti-Buddhist etc. polemics on message boards, or attacking their leaders, traditions, and culture. This does not mean that I would not and have not criticized elements of the culture or beliefs of others, but only in an intellectual manner within certain ground rules.

Sounds fair to me. I would describe my own "opposition" (if you can even call it that) to Mormonism in similar terms. I certainly pose intellectual criticism of its elements and culture from time to time, and I'm as in favor of converting Latter-day Saints to my religion as I am anybody else, but those are the only ways in which I am "contra" to it. I hold great admiration for Mormonism in other respects, and I liked it well enough to make it a permanent part of my life by marrying a Latter-day Saint.

Do you believe the late President Ronald Reagan was an "anti-Mormon"?

Of course not.

Good answer.

You were caught in that debacle with your pants down around your ankles, Jack,

To that analogy, I say: ew.

so no need to go over and over it again here.

I agree. I encourage interested parties to read that debacle for themselves.

the Church holds to no such doctrine of the subordination of one sex to the other [SNIP] The patriarchal order, and the division of labors and emphasis as to home and work have nothing to do with a subordination/domination paradigm. That's an imposition from outside the restored gospel.

The word "patriarchy" means "rule by men." If the church affirms a "patriarchal order," it affirms the subordination of women to men.

And it was not so long ago that the church was pretty much describing it in those terms.

However, the man does preside in the home according to worthy and righteously held Priesthood authority, and is the highest governing authority in the home according to that calling and responsibility.

"Preside" means "to exercise authority or control." A man who is exercising authority or control over his wife is not in a relationship of shared authority.

On another note though, I don't believe that you're accurately describing your church's doctrine of presiding. The LDS church teaches that a man's right to preside is rooted in his maleness, not his priesthood. If it were about priesthood, the church would have to say that non-LDS men have no right to preside in their homes.

In your church, that may be the case. In the Lord's authorized church and Kingdom, it is not.

My church is the Lord's church.

Woman and men are different, in a number of subtle yet profound ways for a number of reasons

I agree that men and women are different, but I've yet to see documentation of any differences that would demonstrate the wisdom in barring all women from ordered ministry. It's an arbitrary restriction based not on gender differences, but on male privilege.

In any case, there is no doctrine in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints that asserts a woman's only worth is in the production of children.

I said "primarily," not "only."

I'm really not at all sure of what your trying to say here, but clearly, Jesus Christ was not the most powerful being in the universe in his preexistent state. Biblically, he was subordinate to the Father in power and glory at that time

I disagree that the Bible teaches this.

Jesus did not "empty" himself and "give it all away," He entered a human organism for a number of reasons, one primary one being that he could effect the Atonement

Philippians 2:5-8, especially v.7

The only folks who ever "gave away" all their power and potential were the one third of the children of the Father who choose to rebel against the light when it was clear and obvious to them.

There are no such beings in my theology, Droopy. Were you trying to understand what I believe, or just looking for a window to lecture me on what you believe?

And how would you describe that?

I'm not sure I understand the question. I already described Christian egalitarianism at length. Are you asking me about my preferred system of government?