DiscussMormonism.com

oxygenadam wrote:

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.

I have never studied the life and work of the Tanners in any detail. I am aware that many of their publications must be extremely uncongenial to believers in the doctrines of the CoJCoLDS.

However, I can't recall seeing any activity ascribed to them that would reasonably be called 'hate mongering', in the sense that I understand the term at least, which is 'selling or distributing material likely to cause people actually to hate' (in this case) believers in the doctrines of the CoJCoLDS, as a group so defined.

Some of the material I recall might cause people to think that believers in the doctrines of the CoJCoLDS did not have strong critical faculties, but that is hardly likely to make people hate them, is it?

So please give me some examples of the Tanners encouraging people to hate believers in the doctrines of the CoJCoLDS, as a group so defined.

Chap wrote:I have never studied the life and work of the Tanners in any detail. I am aware that many of their publications must be extremely uncongenial to believers in the doctrines of the CoJCoLDS.

However, I can't recall seeing any activity ascribed to them that would reasonably be called 'hate mongering', in the sense that I understand the term at least, which is 'selling or distributing material likely to cause people actually to hate' (in this case) believers in the doctrines of the CoJCoLDS, as a group so defined.

Some of the material I recall might cause people to think that believers in the doctrines of the CoJCoLDS did not have strong critical faculties, but that is hardly likely to make people hate them, is it?

So please give me some examples of the Tanners encouraging people to hate believers in the doctrines of the CoJCoLDS, as a group so defined.

The comment was in regards to my earlier comment about in-your-face protesters at the Conference Center during General Conference, not the tanners.

I wrote:They [the protesters] 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 just for fun, here's a video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ab3SiqCqI0

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

You use of "insanity" was an obvious insult. And what you don't know about the denizens of this board is about to bite you in the butt.

Harmony, I feel that I must remind you that "lawfully" does not always equal "morally correct."

Of course it doesn't. Were that so, Marriott wouldn't have a temple recommend, since selling porn is lawful but not morally correct (at least to Mormons).

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 am 57. My hair is pure white. Our society considers me a senior citizen. Somehow I think I am in a better position to know what I'm talking about when it comes to age than you. My reaction, had I been in Sandra's shoes when she was verbally attacked, would have been to turn on a recorder so I could catch all of their rudeness and then publish it ASAP so anyone interested could have a complete transcript of the conversation (I'd even give copies away), call my sons and have the classless individual escorted from my shop, and then to seek a court order barring said individual from entrance. But Sandra is nicer than I am.

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

Ah. And yet to me, WHY is the most important knowledge of all, and it's quite obvious that you have no idea of the WHY.

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.

With a dollar and your word, I can get a soda at McDonald's.

harmony wrote:You use of "insanity" was an obvious insult. And what you don't know about the denizens of this board is about to bite you in the butt.

What "don't I know"? And what's with the threat?

Of course it doesn't. Were that so, Marriott wouldn't have a temple recommend, since selling porn is lawful but not morally correct (at least to Mormons).

Nice red herring.

I am 57. My hair is pure white. Our society considers me a senior citizen. Somehow I think I am in a better position to know what I'm talking about when it comes to age than you. My reaction, had I been in Sandra's shoes when she was verbally attacked, would have been to turn on a recorder so I could catch all of their rudeness and then publish it ASAP so anyone interested could have a complete transcript of the conversation (I'd even give copies away), call my sons and have the classless individual escorted from my shop, and then to seek a court order barring said individual from entrance. But Sandra is nicer than I am.

Again, your reaction and Sandra's reaction are irrelevant. Those mean old BYU professors entered a public business, during business hours and verbally challenged one of the owners of the business, not about her, but about the items that the business sells. Again, age is not a factor here. I am not saying she didn't have a right to ask them to leave, she legally did. But she definitely doesn't have the right to expect to open an anti-Mormon book store in the heart of Mormon headquarters and coexist peacefully. If the Tanners wanted to open such a bookstore, they should have been aware (its really quite obvious) that a hate store does not go over well with the local population.

Ah. And yet to me, WHY is the most important knowledge of all, and it's quite obvious that you have no idea of the WHY.

Alright, you caught my curiosity. What exactly are you getting at here?

With a dollar and your word, I can get a soda at McDonald's.

ZING!!!111one

oxygenadam wrote:

harmony wrote:You use of "insanity" was an obvious insult. And what you don't know about the denizens of this board is about to bite you in the butt.

What "don't I know"? And what's with the threat?

That was not a threat. And I see no reason to enlighten you. You're much too fun when you're working under the mistaken assumption that you know much of anything.

Of course it doesn't. Were that so, Marriott wouldn't have a temple recommend, since selling porn is lawful but not morally correct (at least to Mormons).

Nice red herring.

Not at all. You're the one who brought up the difference between lawful and morally correct. I just used one of more prominent members to demonstrate your premise.

Again, your reaction and Sandra's reaction are irrelevant. Those mean old BYU professors entered a public business, during business hours and verbally challenged one of the owners of the business, not about her, but about the items that the business sells. Again, age is not a factor here. I am not saying she didn't have a right to ask them to leave, she legally did. But she definitely doesn't have the right to expect to open an anti-Mormon book store in the heart of Mormon headquarters and coexist peacefully. If the Tanners wanted to open such a bookstore, they should have been aware (its really quite obvious) that a hate store does not go over well with the local population.

You might want to listen to Pres Hinckley's talk on tolerance again. And you might want to consult the scriptures a bit more about being kind, having charity in your heart, and then you might want to figure out what longsuffering really is. Because right now, you're not following the prophet. But then, netierh was the guy you admire so much. He was about as far over the line as a fool can get.

Ah. And yet to me, WHY is the most important knowledge of all, and it's quite obvious that you have no idea of the WHY.

all right, you caught my curiosity. What exactly are you getting at here?

Why people hate the church is more important than anything else. Only if we understand the why can we make the necessary adjustments within.

Before you judge anyone and any action, first you must determine if you have stewardship. If you have none, you have no right to judge. Next you need to consider what our leaders would do under the same circumstance. I don't recall Pres Hinckley ever expressing anything but loving kindness for those who disagree with us. Even when those others are appallingly rude. Walking in his footsteps is not a bad idea.

If you're going to be here, try to practice turning the other cheek. Otherwise you just make us look stupid.

harmony wrote:

oxygenadam wrote:What "don't I know"? And what's with the threat?

That was not a threat. And I see no reason to enlighten you. You're much too fun when you're working under the mistaken assumption that you know much of anything.

What would President Monson do?
What are the "denizens of this board" going to do? Stalk me like they do other people?

You might want to listen to Pres Hinckley's talk on tolerance again. And you might want to consult the scriptures a bit more about being kind, having charity in your heart, and then you might want to figure out what longsuffering really is. Because right now, you're not following the prophet. But then, netierh was the guy you admire so much. He was about as far over the line as a fool can get.

let me rephrase your wording for you:

The Tanners and other anti-Mormons might want to listen to Pres Hinckley's talk on tolerance again. And The Tanners and other anti-Mormons might want to consult the scriptures a bit more about being kind, having charity in their heart[s], and then The Tanners and other anti-Mormons might want to figure out what longsuffering really is. Because right now, The Tanners and other anti-Mormons are not following the teaching of Jesus. But then, netierh was the guy you admire so much. He was about as far over the line as a fool can get.

See what I did there?
If there weren't anti-Mormons, there would be no "mopologetics." It's as simple as that.

Why people hate the church is more important than anything else. Only if we understand the why can we make the necessary adjustments within.

Why don't you apply this to the protesters? I don't know why they hate the Church so much, it is irrational. In an ideal world, we'd all get a long, unfortunately people like the Tanners decide to take upon themselves a crusade of hatred, necessitating the need to apologetics.

Before you judge anyone and any action, first you must determine if you have stewardship. If you have none, you have no right to judge. Next you need to consider what our leaders would do under the same circumstance. I don't recall Pres Hinckley ever expressing anything but loving kindness for those who disagree with us. Even when those others are appallingly rude. Walking in his footsteps is not a bad idea.

Again, why don't you apply this to the critics?

If you're going to be here, try to practice turning the other cheek. Otherwise you just make us look stupid.

Why are you here, as a moderator, Harmony? This is not a place that has many LDS people in it. Many people here, I've noticed, hate the LDS faith. So why are you here?

Oh, and if you don't want me here, I am sure you have the power to ban me.

oxygenadam

Is that you Skywalker?

I want to cut you in two with my light saber. Tell your friends at MAD that I'm coming and will destroy them all.

Paul O

oxygenadam

Come down to the telestial board, boy. I want to say personal attacks against you and say evil things.

I want to say evil things about your church presidents. I want to mock them and will challenge them with my priesthoods. Let us see who can bring fire down from the sky. I will burn Monson to a crisp.

hahahahahahahah!!!

Paul O

Paul Osborne wrote:

oxygenadam

Is that you Skywalker?

I want to cut you in two with my light saber. Tell your friends at MAD that I'm coming and will destroy them all.

Paul O

It is me!

Your overconfidence is your weakness Palpatine!

It is me!

Your overconfidence is your weakness Palpatine!

Come and fight me down in the telestial board. I've been waiting a long time for this. I will show you the true nature of the dark side.

Lord J, prepare for battle. Slay all the Jedi! Wipe them out! Burn their temples and end the ordinances. Put their prophets in chains.

Paul O