Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_DarkHelmet
_Emeritus
Posts: 5422
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:38 pm

Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"

Post by _DarkHelmet »

Since gay-rights is the new big social issue, when is someone going to write "The Church and the Homo"?
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die."
- Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"

Post by _Darth J »

Simon Belmont wrote:
Darth J wrote:You know, f*****g Cleopatra didn't spend as much time on de Nile as you do. Here are just two examples:

LeGrand Richards, "Strange Creeds of Christendom", Ensign, Jan. 1973

Would you find it offensive if a Protestant minister gave a talk called "Strange Creeds of Mormonism"?


That's a weak analogy. A protestant minister would have to give a speech that is much broader than "Mormonism," say "The Strange Creeds of Restorationism." Because Richards's talk was not "The Strange Creeds of [a particular denomination]."


And now we meet Denial's close sibling, Avoid.

You're not making things better; you're making things worse. According to you, Elder Richards is demeaning an entire religion, not just one particular branch of it. Which is a valid point, actually.

My question is very apropos, though, because Mormonism is not a particular denomination, either.

So, again: if it is acceptable for LeGrand Richards to find fault with the strange creeds of traditional Christianity, then why is it not acceptable for a Protestant minister to demean the strange creeds of the Mormon movement?

Would it be okay with you if a Protestant minister went through the Articles of Faith and the story of the First Vision, and then talked about how it makes no sense to believe in a man-god who lives on a planet by the star Kolob and used to be a mortal man, and has this pyramid scheme to move himself upward by making more and more gods under him?


There you go with your weak analogies again.


Jeffrey R. Holland is pointing out how the traditional beliefs about God in Christianity make no sense. Why is it not acceptable, then, for a Protestant minister to give a sermon about how the Mormon idea of God makes no sense?

Backing up what I say?


No, asking loaded questions for which you have several quotes already mined to counter the predicted answer.


Let's summarize what you just admitted:

1. Your responses are predictable.
2. LDS teachings are going to contradict your talking points.
3. You know that I will be able to demonstrate this.

Muhammad Ali had, "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee." I suppose you could go with, "Denial like a river in Egypt, avoidance like doing a pogo stick in a minefield." It's a little clunkier, though.
_cafe crema
_Emeritus
Posts: 2042
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:07 am

Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"

Post by _cafe crema »

Simon Belmont wrote:
Would you find it offensive if a Protestant minister gave a talk called "Strange Creeds of Mormonism"?


That's a weak analogy. A protestant minister would have to give a speech that is much broader than "Mormonism," say "The Strange Creeds of Restorationism." Because Richards's talk was not "The Strange Creeds of [a particular denomination]."


Why is it okay to mock the beliefs of those who believe in Christian creeds?
_Simon Belmont

Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"

Post by _Simon Belmont »

SB wrote:That's a weak analogy. A protestant minister would have to give a speech that is much broader than "Mormonism," say "The Strange Creeds of Restorationism." Because Richards's talk was not "The Strange Creeds of [a particular denomination]."


DJ wrote:And now we meet Denial's close sibling, Avoid.

You're not making things better; you're making things worse. According to you, Elder Richards is demeaning an entire religion, not just one particular branch of it. Which is a valid point, actually.

My question is very apropos, though, because Mormonism is not a particular denomination, either.


GBH disagrees with you.

GBH wrote:There is no such thing as a “Mormon Fundamentalist.” It is a contradiction to use the two words together.


So, again: if it is acceptable for LeGrand Richards to find fault with the strange creeds of traditional Christianity, then why is it not acceptable for a Protestant minister to demean the strange creeds of the Mormon movement?


Again, if LeGrand Richards were attacking a particular denomination, your analogy might hold up. As it stands, it is a bad argument.

Just a side note: did you actually read Richards's talk?

Jeffrey R. Holland is pointing out how the traditional beliefs about God in Christianity make no sense. Why is it not acceptable, then, for a Protestant minister to give a sermon about how the Mormon idea of God makes no sense?


Because "Mormon" is a term commonly used to refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yes, there are others who call themselves "Mormon," but, as Hinckley says, there is only one. If Jeffery R. Holland pointed out how the beliefs about God in [a particular denomination] don't make sense, your analogy might hold up.

No, asking loaded questions for which you have several quotes already mined to counter the predicted answer.


Let's summarize what you just admitted:

1. Your responses are predictable.
2. LDS teachings are going to contradict your talking points.
3. You know that I will be able to demonstrate this.


What I "admitted" was that you love to search LDS.org and FAIR for quotations which support your position, then craft carefully loaded questions in an attempt to trap LDS members.
_Simon Belmont

Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"

Post by _Simon Belmont »

cafe crema wrote:

Why is it okay to mock the beliefs of those who believe in Christian creeds?



It isn't.
_Joseph
_Emeritus
Posts: 3517
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 11:00 pm

Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"

Post by _Joseph »

blemnot uses GordyB of the Big 3 as a source for 'doctrine'?

The same gordy that said polygamy is not doctrinal, lds-inc does not believe in eternal progression and he did not know Mark Hoffman. Gordy the liar? THAT hinckster?

Surly slimeone, you can do better than a jerk like that.

As for Mormon fundamentalists, they do exist. They practice the lds religion closer to what joseph the coxman and brigham taught than anything lds-inc from salt lake city teaches today.
"This is how INGORNAT these fools are!" - darricktevenson

Bow your head and mutter, what in hell am I doing here?

infaymos wrote: "Peterson is the defacto king ping of the Mormon Apologetic world."
_cafe crema
_Emeritus
Posts: 2042
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:07 am

Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"

Post by _cafe crema »

Simon Belmont wrote:
cafe crema wrote:

Why is it okay to mock the beliefs of those who believe in Christian creeds?



It isn't.

Then Mr. Hollands conference talk was inappropriate.
_DarkHelmet
_Emeritus
Posts: 5422
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:38 pm

Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"

Post by _DarkHelmet »

Simon Belmont wrote:
cafe crema wrote:

It isn't.

Then Mr. Hollands conference talk was inappropriate.


I think it is acceptable for Mormons and their leaders to criticize other religious groups. They've been doing it since the 1820s, why should they stop now? They just need to grow thicker skin and realize that just as they are free to criticize others, others are free to criticize them. Mormonism should not get special protection.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die."
- Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"

Post by _Darth J »

Simon Belmont wrote:
Darth J wrote:That's a weak analogy. A protestant minister would have to give a speech that is much broader than "Mormonism," say "The Strange Creeds of Restorationism." Because Richards's talk was not "The Strange Creeds of [a particular denomination]."


And now we meet Denial's close sibling, Avoid.

You're not making things better; you're making things worse. According to you, Elder Richards is demeaning an entire religion, not just one particular branch of it. Which is a valid point, actually.

My question is very apropos, though, because Mormonism is not a particular denomination, either.


Simon Belmont wrote:GBH disagrees with you.

GBH wrote:There is no such thing as a “Mormon Fundamentalist.” It is a contradiction to use the two words together.


You mean the Gordon B. Hinckley who didn't know why black men couldn't be ordained to the priesthood, who didn't know that we teach or emphasize exaltation, and who admitted that "Mormon = more good" is completely made up, but thinks it's a good motto anyway?

Are you being serious that your response to a post where I explained that Gordon B. Hinckley was wrong on this specific point about "Mormonism" is to reiterate that Gordon B. Hinckley said something that I already demonstrated to be wrong?

So, again: if it is acceptable for LeGrand Richards to find fault with the strange creeds of traditional Christianity, then why is it not acceptable for a Protestant minister to demean the strange creeds of the Mormon movement?


Again, if LeGrand Richards were attacking a particular denomination, your analogy might hold up. As it stands, it is a bad argument.

Just a side note: did you actually read Richards's talk?


I'm sorry, Simon, but at this point I must conclude that your consistent avoidance of the issue shows that you do have a double standard about criticizing someone's cherished beliefs.

And yes, unlike internet defenders of the faith, I do read what the Church and its leaders teaches. That's how going to apologists---formal or informal---for answers on my questions about the Church led what was left of my faith to collapse under its own weight. Defending the Church by ignoring and/or contradicting its teachings does not make a compelling case for, "The Church is true!"

Since your calling this a bad analogy decidedly ignores that when Elder Richards criticizes traditional Christian creeds, he is necessarily criticizing denominations that believe in those creeds, this is merely further proof of how "the moral voice of the board" believes that morality regarding criticism of someone's cherished beliefs is a one-way street.

Jeffrey R. Holland is pointing out how the traditional beliefs about God in Christianity make no sense. Why is it not acceptable, then, for a Protestant minister to give a sermon about how the Mormon idea of God makes no sense?


Because "Mormon" is a term commonly used to refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yes, there are others who call themselves "Mormon," but, as Hinckley says, there is only one. If Jeffery R. Holland pointed out how the beliefs about God in [a particular denomination] don't make sense, your analogy might hold up.


The unsupported assertion of a lifetime professional cheerleader for the Church (Hinckley) is incorrect. I have shown that to be the case, and you are simply relying on one of the only three things that you have to offer: argument by repetition (the other being argument by assertion and parroting on whatever FAIR says).

Let's summarize what you just admitted:

1. Your responses are predictable.
2. LDS teachings are going to contradict your talking points.
3. You know that I will be able to demonstrate this.


What I "admitted" was that you love to search LDS.org and FAIR for quotations which support your position, then craft carefully loaded questions in an attempt to trap LDS members.


In other words,

1. Your responses are predictable.
2. LDS teachings are going to contradict your talking points.
3. You know that I will be able to demonstrate this.
_Simon Belmont

Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"

Post by _Simon Belmont »

cafe crema wrote:Then Mr. Hollands conference talk was inappropriate.


No, it wasn't. He did not mock anything.
Post Reply