DiscussMormonism.com

Doctor Scratch wrote:Hi there, oxygenadam. I see that you haven't provided any analysis for this, and therefore I cannot really regard you as having fulfilled the CFR here. Sorry! I'm fully and completely ready to address all of your CFRs, but I really think, all things considered, that you ought to fulfill all the terms I laid out in the beginning. And FYI: some of your "analysis" really leaves a lot to be desired, and I may have to ask that you backtrack and provide analysis that is actually convincing and logical. Just FYI.

As you would say: you're moving the goalposts. It's not a very honorable thing to do, but upon reading through the statements in your posting history, I see that I should have expected this. Convincing to you is one thing, because nothing can convince you. I provided references, based on your original CFR, then I allowed you to modify your CFR. I've jumped through your hoops, now put up or I'll expect you to be done with this thread.

Further, I don't believe you are "fully and completely ready to address all of [my] CFRs."

Hi there, oxygenadam. I'm delighted to see that, after some nine pages of dodging, you've at last attempted to post some evidence that demonstrates, via examples and analysis, that the SHIELDS apologists are justified in stooping to some astonishing lows in their crusade to destroy critics' lives. Of course, there are a ton of things wrong with your argumentation and logic. Like this, for example:

oxygenadam wrote:I am sure you agree that the terms “hate” and “vicious” have dictionary definitions, but much of what is considered hate or viciousness is left up to the person being misrepresented. Like all faiths, the LDS hold their beliefs as very personal, and very profound. So, while a non-LDS might not always see hate or viciousness, any misrepresentation, to an LDS believer who has his or her life invested in the faith, will be seen in this manner.

Here you are essentially tossing the definitions out the window in favor of a purely subjective (not to mention somewhat fascist) way of judging things. You are arguing, in effect, that the dictionary definitions don't really matter since the given hardcore LDS will pick and choose what s/he deems to be "vicious hatred." Well, by that standard, any of your cited critics could turn around and say that the LDS Church itself is riddled with "vicious hatred" given the way that it has historically distorted the truth on a number of issues. Lots of people consider truth, honesty, and forthrightness to be "very personal, and very profound," and if a powerful and absolutist institution like the LDS Church is trampling on these values, I think you'd agree that robust criticism is in order.

And this returns us to our original discussion point (and let's face it---the CFRs were a bit of a diversion), which is the issue of whether or not the apologists are justified in their disgusting behavior on SHIELDS. You suggested it was, since the Church critics "started it." Obviously, you have no evidence whatsoever for this claim. (It was a dumb and naïve claim to begin with.) You can barely demonstrate that the remarks are legitimately "vicious hatred." (For the record, I do think some of the critical remarks are dumb, very mean, and harsh, but then again this is why SHIELDS singled them out---so as to paint all critics as foul-tempered, sailor-mouthed idiots.)

So, we circle back again to my original point, which is that you needed the "vicious hate" of the SHIELDS apologists to rescue your testimony. You stumbled across a relatively benign critical site---the one you (finally) linked to---and then ran to SHIELDS for help. That the antics of the SHIELDS Mopologists would rescue your wavering faith is a thing that utterly defies logic, and it suggests that you're more interested in revenge and aggressive polemics than in spiritually uplifting edification. But, I think in the end that most LDS apologists don't care what you think or feel, just so long as you maintain fidelity to the Church.

Doctor Scratch wrote: You are arguing, in effect, that the dictionary definitions don't really matter since the given hardcore LDS will pick and choose what s/he deems to be "vicious hatred."

LDS use some words differently than any other group.

Recommend
Sealing
Ward
Stake
Mutual
Relief

etc etc. Maybe OA has found that "vicious hatred" should be on that list too.

Doctor Scratch wrote:Hi there, oxygenadam. I'm delighted to see that, after some nine pages of dodging, you've at last attempted to post some evidence that demonstrates, via examples and analysis, that the SHIELDS apologists are justified in stooping to some astonishing lows in their crusade to destroy critics' lives. Of course, there are a ton of things wrong with your argumentation and logic. Like this, for example:

I grow weary of you dodging the CFRs that I presented you with. If you can't support your claims, that's fine, just tell me and I'll leave you alone about them.

Here you are essentially tossing the definitions out the window in favor of a purely subjective (not to mention somewhat fascist) way of judging things. You are arguing, in effect, that the dictionary definitions don't really matter since the given hardcore LDS will pick and choose what s/he deems to be "vicious hatred." Well, by that standard, any of your cited critics could turn around and say that the LDS Church itself is riddled with "vicious hatred" given the way that it has historically distorted the truth on a number of issues.

LDS may see things as more vicious or hateful than non-LDS, because of the deep-rooted devotion to their faith. Just like Catholics probably find much of anti-Catholocism more visious and hateful than, say, you would.

It doesn't change the dictionary definitions, and all of the examples I supplied fit those definitions. So, objectively and subjectively, I have satisfied your CFR.

It has not been established, nor is it the subject of this discussion whether the LDS Church "historically distorted the truth on a number of issues." This is a blatant red herring on your part.

Lots of people consider truth, honesty, and forthrightness to be "very personal, and very profound," and if a powerful and absolutist institution like the LDS Church is trampling on these values, I think you'd agree that robust criticism is in order.

Intellectual discussion, and constructive criticism is fine. Hate is not.

And this returns us to our original discussion point (and let's face it---the CFRs were a bit of a diversion),

Perhaps they were, for you, who seems to be unable to back them up.

which is the issue of whether or not the apologists are justified in their disgusting behavior on SHIELDS. You suggested it was, since the Church critics "started it." Obviously, you have no evidence whatsoever for this claim. (It was a dumb and naïve claim to begin with.)

In essence, yes. For example, if I went to the heart of Jerusalem and started an anti-Semite bookstore, and expected to peacefully coexist with the Jewish population, I would either have to be completely insane, or completely stupid. If I went to Salt Lake City, during a Pentecostal Church convention, and gave seminars titled "Understanding our Mormon Neighbors" that blatantly made false representations, I would have to be insane, or stupid to think that it would not meet with opposition.

I think the real problem, for you, is that these scholars, who are very educated and knowledgeable, many of whom hold a PhD from a top university, can easily outsmart and out maneuver the claims of anti-Mormons.

anti-Mormons, of course, don't like this, because many of them make their living by attacking this one institution. If they are found to be false, they will lose their job.

...all critics as foul-tempered, sailor-mouthed idiots.

For the record, I do not believe "all" critics fit this description.

So, we circle back again to my original point, which is that you needed the "vicious hate" of the SHIELDS apologists to rescue your testimony. You stumbled across a relatively benign critical site---the one you (finally) linked to---and then ran to SHIELDS for help.

I "finally" linked to a site that obviously hasn't been updated since the early 2000's. It took a long time to find it. I didn't "run" to SHIELDS for help. I Google searched for "anti-Mormon response" or something similar. SHIELDS, at that time, was one of the first hits.

That the antics of the SHIELDS Mopologists would rescue your wavering faith is a thing that utterly defies logic, and it suggests that you're more interested in revenge and aggressive polemics than in spiritually uplifting edification. But, I think in the end that most LDS apologists don't care what you think or feel, just so long as you maintain fidelity to the Church.

Yes, I know how you loathe apologists. I've read many of your posts over the years, about how you want them to pay for what they've done.

What they've done is continually exposed, outsmarted, and outwitted the vile hatred of anti-Mormons. Let me say it again, Scratch, Apologists would not exist if anti-Mormonism didn't exist.

Now, If you do not intend to honor my CFR request, we are done with this thread.

harmony wrote:

Doctor Scratch wrote: You are arguing, in effect, that the dictionary definitions don't really matter since the given hardcore LDS will pick and choose what s/he deems to be "vicious hatred."

LDS use some words differently than any other group.

Recommend
Sealing
Ward
Stake
Mutual
Relief

etc etc. Maybe OA has found that "vicious hatred" should be on that list too.

There sure is a lot of backslapping and high-five-ing going on around here.

oxygenadam wrote:There sure is a lot of backslapping and high-five-ing going on around here.

GMTA

OA wrote:Had there not been hate mongering already out there, there would not be SHIELDS

If anti-Mormon lit were hate mongering comparable to antisemitism as you've been suggesting, then it wouldn't have placed doubts in your mind about the Church. While there are a few odd counterexamples out there, it's virtually unthinkable for a stalwart cultural and religious Jew to encounter neo-Nazi propaganda and then go through a tremendous trial of faith, wondering if maybe it's true that Jews are the cause of the worlds problems. It's a rather everyday occurrence, however, for a TBM to be shaken by EV anti-lit or even convert to Saints Alive in Jesus or some other born again group. The two classes of "hate mongering" are not remotely comparable. It's borderline antisemitic of you apologists to equate the lone, powerless evangelical protesters at temple square (most of whom would welcome LDS into their homes) to Nazis and antisemitism, thus diminishing the horror of the holocaust to the shrieks of spoiled cry-babies who grew up in Orem chowing down on fry sauce, ill-prepared to emotionally deal with a critic on the internet challenging their assumptions about religion.

Interestingly enough, you've recently admitted that when you went back to the original anti source of your life crisis, it didn't seem that bad. That's because it wasn't. If it had been, it wouldn't have caused a life crisis for you.

Gadianton wrote:If anti-Mormon lit were hate mongering comparable to antisemitism as you've been suggesting, then it wouldn't have placed doubts in your mind about the Church. While there are a few odd counterexamples out there, it's virtually unthinkable for a stalwart cultural and religious Jew to encounter neo-Nazi propaganda and then go through a tremendous trial of faith, wondering if maybe it's true that Jews are the cause of the worlds problems. It's a rather everyday occurrence, however, for a TBM to be shaken by EV anti-lit or even convert to Saints Alive in Jesus or some other born again group.

Really? An every day occurrence? Most LDS that I know are wholly unaware of any anti-Mormon material, or what the claims of anti-Mormons are. Perhaps your experiences have been different.

Of course anti-Semitic attitudes are more violent and rabid than a lot of anti-Mormon literature and attitudes, but that was not my argument. My argument was that it is the paramount sign of insanity to open an anti-"something" shop/bookstore in the heart of the "something" that you are anti, and expect to leave peacefully among the "somethings." Of course, I believe in the freedoms that we all share, therefore anyone is welcome to open the anti-"something" bookstore, just don't whine about it when "something" academics challenge your claims, or even tease you. You brought it on yourself in this case.

The two classes of "hate mongering" are not remotely comparable. It's borderline antisemitic of you apologists to equate the lone, powerless evangelical protesters at temple square (most of whom would welcome LDS into their homes) to Nazis and antisemitism, thus diminishing the horror of the holocaust to the shrieks of spoiled cry-babies who grew up in Orem chowing down on fry sauce, ill-prepared to emotionally deal with a critic on the internet challenging their assumptions about religion.

They are not powerless. They are in-your-face hecklers who hold items a faith group holds to the highest degrees of sacredness on a wooden stick and flail it/them around like trash. These people hate the Mormon church, and although they might let an LDS member into their home, the conversation would only be about how that LDS person is going to hell.

And by the way, I am not an apologist. I am simply a well-read LDS believer. Apologists spend a lot more time destroying anti-Mormon claims than I do.

Interestingly enough, you've recently admitted that when you went back to the original anti source of your life crisis, it didn't seem that bad. That's because it wasn't. If it had been, it wouldn't have caused a life crisis for you.

It wasn't that bad when I went back there, no. Not compared to the filth I have seen since that site sparked my interest in apologetics.

Perhaps you know Mark D. Champeneys?

oxygenadam wrote: My argument was that it is the paramount sign of insanity to open an anti-"something" shop/bookstore in the heart of the "something" that you are anti, and expect to leave peacefully among the "somethings." Of course, I believe in the freedoms that we all share, therefore anyone is welcome to open the anti-"something" bookstore, just don't whine about it when "something" academics challenge your claims, or even tease you. You brought it on yourself in this case.

You ignorance about what insanity really is shows. Now would be a good time to learn.

And if academics had any class, they 1) wouldn't bother people who are lawfully engaged in a business even if they disagreed with the basic premise of the business, and 2) wouldn't be caught dead teasing old women. Period. No class, that's what that episode showed. None. Zip. Nada.

They are in-your-face hecklers who hold items a faith group holds to the highest degrees of sacredness on a wooden stick and flail it/them around like trash. These people hate the Mormon church, and although they might let an LDS member into their home, the conversation would only be about how that LDS person is going to hell.

Perhaps you should spend more time finding out WHY... and then maybe you could follow the prophet a little more closely.

And by the way, I am not an apologist.

DUH. No kidding?!

I am simply a well-read LDS believer.

I've yet to see any evidence that you're at all well-read. Hint: FARMS and FAIR aren't on the well-read list.

harmony wrote:You ignorance about what insanity really is shows. Now would be a good time to learn.

Actually, FYI, the psychological community doesn't generally use the word "insanity" anymore in a professional sense, they refer to mentally unhealthy people as having a specific condition.

My use of the word "insanity" was an obvious colloquialism, and if you didn't grasp that, I apologize for offending you.

And if academics had any class, they 1) wouldn't bother people who are lawfully engaged in a business even if they disagreed with the basic premise of the business, and 2) wouldn't be caught dead teasing old women. Period. No class, that's what that episode showed. None. Zip. Nada.

Harmony, I feel that I must remind you that "lawfully" does not always equal "morally correct." My position is that Sandra Tanner is fully within her rights to open an anti-Mormon bookstore in the heart of Mormon headquarters. The problem is when she and her late husband complain that people who know more than they do challenge their position, ideas, books, and everything else they sell. And, by the way the event in question happened in 1997. Sandra was born in 1941 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Tanner). So, if you consider 56 being an "old woman" then you certainly have a distorted view of what "old" actually is. I mean, she's only 69 now. Are you aware of the average life expectancy for human females?

I'll entertain no more talk of "little old ladies" just out watering their rose bushes while some mean BYU scholar attacks her and all of her cats with a crowbar, steals her purse, and opens three credit cards in her name.

Perhaps you should spend more time finding out WHY... and then maybe you could follow the prophet a little more closely.

I don't need to find out why. I know why. They are simply hate mongering bigots.

And by the way, I am not an apologist.

DUH. No kidding?

You've solved the case, Sherlock! Did I ever claim that I was? EVER? No!

I am simply a well-read LDS believer.

I've yet to see any evidence that you're at all well-read. Hint: FARMS and FAIR aren't on the well-read list.

Thank you for your opinion of me based on a couple of posts. You do not know me, what I've read, my education level, or any of my hobbies. I have nothing to prove to you, so you're just going to have to take my word for it that I am well read.