Rich's Website

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: Rich's Website

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Belmont
Yes, you most positively have! It isn't as if your information is anything new! It's been tried for 180 years, and by much more talented people than you. Yet the Church is still strong. Nothing has come from 180 years of anti-Mormonism.


Anti-Mormonism?

In your exchanges with me you used the term "anti-Mormon" to describe Craig Criddle.

You do realize that these are two very different desciptors, don't you?

One describes being in opposition to a religion and the other describe being in opposition to the people.

And this is where the problem lies, Belmont. You likely are someone who throws around the term "anti-Mormon" without thinking about what it means. If you would take 5 seconds and think about what I stated between the two descriptors that you are indiscriminately throwing about as if they were interchangeable (when they are NOT), you would see why Criddle's statement regarding the term anti-Mormon makes all the sense in the world.

When he refers to his "tribe" he does so with great love and admiration. NOT in the darkest possible sense where YOUR mind apparently went.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Simon Belmont

Re: Rich's Website

Post by _Simon Belmont »

Chap wrote:The CoJCoLDS claims a whole 1.4% share of the US population in surveys of the religion that people identify themselves with when asked, and over most of the last decade it has remained just where it was. That is despite relentless missionary work, and larger than average families.


Yeah, because the population of the United States doesn't increase, right Chap?
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Rich's Website

Post by _Themis »

SB is just here to attack. He has yet to back up his assertions of inaccurate information on Rich's site. The only hate I see being spewed is by SB. Again SB there is a reason no one takes you seriously here anymore.
42
_Simon Belmont

Re: Rich's Website

Post by _Simon Belmont »

Themis wrote:SB is just here to attack. He has yet to back up his assertions of inaccurate information on Rich's site. The only hate I see being spewed is by SB. Again SB there is a reason no one takes you seriously here anymore.



I backed up my claims. I showed you why Rich is a cookie-cutter anti-Mormon.

  • He only links to anti-Mormon websites (except when called on the carpet, then he hurriedly throws on some links to LDS.org).
  • The front page of his website claims that Mormonism, JWism, and SDAism represent "shattered dreams and wasted lives."

I cannot think of anything more anti-Mormon, or more offensive than that.
_Simon Belmont

Re: Rich's Website

Post by _Simon Belmont »

Jersey Girl wrote:Anti-Mormonism?

In your exchanges with me you used the term "anti-Mormon" to describe Craig Criddle.

You do realize that these are two very different desciptors, don't you?


I understand that you are imposing definitions upon words that are not generally understood to exist.

Anti-Mormon means against Mormonism, or against Mormons. Someone is Anti-Mormon when they participate in the three "P"s which I've described to you earlier.

you would see why Criddle's statement regarding the term anti-Mormon makes all the sense in the world.


It makes sense. It's offensive, hateful, and anti-Mormon, but it makes sense. Making sense does not always equal being right.

When he refers to his "tribe" he does so with great love and admiration. NOT in the darkest possible sense where YOUR mind apparently went.


I disagree. "Tribe" connotes a primitive and ignorant people who are unable to grasp the most rudimentary science and human understanding. As if a Coke bottle landed in Salt Lake City or Provo, and "the Mormon Tribe" declared "the Gods must be crazy!" But of course, those silly Mormons find hilarious uses for the Coke bottle, like leather working, and dough rolling (if they can manage to make dough). Let us sit upon our thrones of superior knowledge and laugh at them! Ha!
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Rich's Website

Post by _Themis »

Simon Belmont wrote:I backed up my claims. I showed you why Rich is a cookie-cutter anti-Mormon.

  • He only links to anti-Mormon websites (except when called on the carpet, then he hurriedly throws on some links to LDS.org).
  • The front page of his website claims that Mormonism, JWism, and SDAism represent "shattered dreams and wasted lives."

I cannot think of anything more anti-Mormon, or more offensive than that.


Yet you can't show anything inaccurate on the site like asked many times. You have never backed this up and you know it. You also define anti-mormon in a meaningless way only used to attack others. So but this is BS, and I doubt hardly any take you seriously here.
42
_Simon Belmont

Re: Rich's Website

Post by _Simon Belmont »

Themis wrote:
Yet you can't show anything inaccurate on the site like asked many times. You have never backed this up and you know it. You also define anti-mormon in a meaningless way only used to attack others. So but this is BS, and I doubt hardly any take you seriously here.


As I said, I don't need to read them.

When you see a car coming down the road, you don't need to examine it to know it is a car.

Likewise, I can see anti-Mormonism from miles away.
_Yoda

Re: Rich's Website

Post by _Yoda »

I found this article on the term, anti-Mormon, quite interesting. I think that it really adds a dimension to the discussion here. This article is found in the Mormon Wiki, and this particular quote, I think is very valuable:
J. Nelson-Seawright, a Mormon, writes on how the term "anti-Mormon" is "inappropriately tainted with genocidal implications":
"The term 'anti-Mormon' has two meanings. First, it means anyone who is opposed to the LDS church. In this sense, there are plenty of anti-Mormons. But the second meaning, which is a semantic parallel to the term 'anti-Semite,' describes people who engage in acts of vitriolic hatred, or even proto-genocide, toward the church.

"As far as I can tell, there are really quite few (although not zero) anti-Mormons in the second sense. So the first definition would probably make the term more useful. Unfortunately, the emotional weight of the second meaning is so much greater than that of the first that it bleeds over. So I think it's really unacceptable to use the term 'anti-Mormon' when you're not describing someone engaged in actual acts of persecution -- because your audience will emotionally experience the statement as involving persecution...

"Bias or even an intention of convincing people not to be Mormon isn't the same as actual persecution. It's not anti-Semitic in the hate-speech sense to claim that the Law of Moses was fulfilled with the coming of Christ. And it's not anti-Mormon in the persecution sense to claim that Joseph Smith was a false prophet. These kinds of ideas, as well as the intention of convincing people not to be Mormon, fall squarely under the first category of anti-Mormon but not the second. We need a different word for these kinds of people, a word that isn't inappropriately tainted with genocidal implications."[8]


I know that when I think of an "anti-Mormon", I am thinking of someone who is causing violence toward the Mormon Church. And, I think that most folks do, as Nelson here suggests, emotionally connect with the second definition.

However, I think that Simon is referring to the first definition of anyone who criticizes the Mormon Church.

May I suggest that the term, critic, might make a lot more sense, at least in the items we are discussing here?

As Jersey Girl pointed out, it sounds to me like Craig Criddle is a very nice man, who has a strong attachment to his family and Mormon friends. I don't see him as someone who would commit violent acts on LDS people, in general, or even to Church buildings, etc.

That is often what our minds automatically go to when we think of Anti-Mormons, and, I think with good reason. After all, Joseph Smith was killed by an angry mob of anti-Mormons. It is this type of anti-Mormon that our minds tend to focus on when this term is used.

ETA--Here is the link to the article:

http://www.mormonwiki.org/Anti-Mormon
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: Rich's Website

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Jersey Girl wrote:When he refers to his "tribe" he does so with great love and admiration. NOT in the darkest possible sense where YOUR mind apparently went.



Belmont wrote:I disagree. "Tribe" connotes a primitive and ignorant people who are unable to grasp the most rudimentary science and human understanding. As if a Coke bottle landed in Salt Lake City or Provo, and "the Mormon Tribe" declared "the Gods must be crazy!" But of course, those silly Mormons find hilarious uses for the Coke bottle, like leather working, and dough rolling (if they can manage to make dough). Let us sit upon our thrones of superior knowledge and laugh at them! Ha!


With all due respect, Belmont, I think I know far better than you what Criddle means when he refers to LDS as his tribe.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Simon Belmont

Re: Rich's Website

Post by _Simon Belmont »

Jersey Girl wrote:With all due respect, Belmont, I think I know far better than you what Criddle means when he refers to LDS as his tribe.


And you probably do.

But he should think about his audience.

When you use the word "tribe" you invoke The Gods Must Be Crazy.

There are many other words to use, of course, that don't invoke condescension.

Is Craig Criddle your husband?
Post Reply