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

[_Droopy]

I should add that Loran's belief and attitude is very similar to that instituted in a number of Muslim communities/countries.

Slay those who insult Mormonism!

[_Droopy]

And here is that fine line that always gets droopy into trouble. For him, you can have your opinion, but you better keep it to yourself or else you're going to be called an anti-Mormon.

Actually, I've never operated or debated anyone on that supposition.

This is the standard attitude among so many of self-ordained sheep herders in the Church. They know their job becomes infinitely more difficult when those with a "different viewpoint" make their views known, because these instances are almost always followed with evidence and argument.

In some thirty years of studying, following, and analyzing anti-Mormon literature and argument, including on the Internet, I've actually found "evidence and argument" to be lightly sprinkled across this casserole. You, Kevin, are in point of fact rather "textbook" as to the form of argument most anti-Mormonism has traditionally taken, which is to say, not so much evidence and argument but mostly cherry red polemics mixed with faux intellectualism. This has been typical of both the EV and secular anti-Mormon movements for a very long time.

When this happens, the intellectually deficient folks like Droopy are immediately threatened by truths they don't know how to handle other than to attack those who hold them.

As I said above, this is textbook.

Like he said, he is worried about the "influence" that can come from expressing one's difference of opinion.

Now, case in point: is Kevin just lying about my views here, hoping most wont even read the entire thread, or is his reading comprehension obscured by his feverish preoccupation in scoring debating points? I'm not sure, but nowhere have I ever erxpressed a problem with people expresssing "difference of opinion" regarding my religion. Let's go over what I just said above again:

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.

Again, with all his loft talk of "intellect" and "evidence and argument," Kevin has a very long history of avoiding precisely that, in most cases.

These opinions frequently are supported by truths that run contrary to the delusion they have embraced for so many years, so they respond indignantly, pretending to be innocent victims of some heinous intellectual crime, when in reality, the greatest enemy to Mormonism is truth and reason.

Wild tautological argument such as this again belies Kevin's claims of intellectual superiority and lofty rationality.

This is why so many people fall into Droopy's category of anti-Mormon. You can have your difference of viewpoint, just keep it to yourself or else we're going to attack you.

See above. I've always, my entire life, welcomed civil, reasoned, sincere dissent and difference of view to that of the Church.

So much for liberty and freedom of speech. You have it, but he's gonna make you pay for expressing it.

I hold no political power, and control no police forces.

Mormons on the other hand, are free to have "difference of viewpoint" and pound on thousands of doors a week to express it, and that doesn't make them anti-anything. The classic double-standard born from the Mormon mind.

This is about as incoherent as it can get. A red herring chasing a strawman.

But the fact is you cannot express a difference of viewpoint without being in a "position to influence" others. It just doesn't happen.

Which is why I clarified the manner in which that influence is extended, as well as its motives and demeanor (as has bc)

Can anyone name a single person on these forums who has made his or her "difference of viewpoint" known publicly, and who hasn't been the recipient of droopy's semi-literate, rhetorical wrath?

Semi-literate? A number of other people here seem to think that I'm over-literate. Rhetorical wrath? Kevin, can you say "irony?"

[_Droopy]

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.

By the Church's own definition of itself, Jeffs is not a Mormon, because he is not a member of the organized, visible Kingdom of God on earth, which is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. He is a "non" Mormon in a full and unambiguous sense.

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?

If you insist, then for the present, and barring any obvious departures from your asserted status here, then yes.

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.

However, Jesus himself said that if we are not for him, then we are against him. There is a nuance and subtley in that statement that requires from fleshing out, but the fundamental point - that differing beliefs are also oppositional beliefs to the degree they are out of harmony with truth, cannot be gainsaid. This does not make any particular persona a persecutor of the Church (an anti-Mormon in the sense I and bc have just elucidated it) just because he holds alternate theological views, however.

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.

Then I think we can agree on this aspect of it.

[_Droopy]

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.

Now, this is a rather phantasmagorical tumor of lies, slanders, falsehoods and calumny aimed at me which has no relevance whatsoever to my actual views, or the manner in which I have traditionally approached even the most obnoxious critics of the Church here, or anywhere else.

My views of those who disagree with LDS thought and teachings are as far from traditional Muslim teachings as one could wish to be. They are probably typical of most serious members of the Church, who do not, upon intellectually honest inspection, look anything like Kevin's self serving cartoon abstraction of them

[_Darth J]

By the Church's own definition of itself, Jeffs is not a Mormon, because he is not a member of the organized, visible Kingdom of God on earth, which is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. He is a "non" Mormon in a full and unambiguous sense.

I'm sorry, Droopy, but the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (dba "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints") does not own the term "Mormon."

blog.php?u=7958&b=2823

[_Darth J]

By the Church's own definition of itself, Jeffs is not a Mormon, because he is not a member of the organized, visible Kingdom of God on earth, which is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. He is a "non" Mormon in a full and unambiguous sense.

Warren Jeffs is not a Mormon in the same way that Thomas S. Monson is not a Christian.

[_Droopy]

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.

But the fact of the matter is that this claim is deeply subjective, and rises and falls, to a substantial extent, on the preexisting bias brought to the text critical argument. The quality of the evidence isn't anything near what would be required for Kevin, or Metcalf, or anyone else to make this kind of assertion with a straight face (but they manage to do it, nonetheless, but not because the evidence is inferentially strong enough to bear that weight).

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.

This is pure speculation; a leap of conjecture that is clearly not supported with any degree of certainty by the evidence at hand. Apologetic counter-arguments have just as much, if not more inferential and text critical evidence on their side as does the critic's arguments, and the question is just as open now as it was decades ago.

But the real Gorilla in the room are the ancient parallels, which cannot be brushed aside as irrelevant or hypothetically thrown in the lap of Josephus. Kevin's been very good at regurgitating what others have been feeding him here for years, but he hasn't done the homework himself and shows no signs of a willingness to do so.

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.

Naked assertions such as this, pretending that they are established facts when, at best, they are one among several alternative theories, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, and none of which have in any way been settled or established, are why Kevin has become an icon of demagoguery and slipshod intellectualism. None of the above is even remotely the case regarding the present status of the text critical evidence, but Kevin will continue to talk as if it was, hoping that the word of his mighty intellectual authority alone will turn the tide.

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.

I think your about to give bc exactly the material he needs...

[_MsJack]

By the Church's own definition of itself, Jeffs is not a Mormon, because he is not a member of the organized, visible Kingdom of God on earth, which is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. He is a "non" Mormon in a full and unambiguous sense.

You're welcome to believe that, but there isn't any reason for a dispassionate outsider to accept your church's claim on the word "Mormon." Members of other traditions descended from the teachings of Joseph Smith self-identify by the term and have done so for just as long as your church has. Some even signed a statement protesting your church's attempts to deny their Mormon identity.

If you insist, then for the present, and barring any obvious departures from your asserted status here, then yes.

Good to hear it.

Thanks for participating in my thread thus far, Droopy.

[_jon]

The term Mormon seems to fit for any of the various restoration sects that use the Book of Mormon as the key stone of their religion and can date their coming into existence back to Joseph Smith.

I can understand why that would cause the LDS sect of the Mormon movement a bit of an identity crisis because they want to distance themselves from their previous practicing of Polygamy.