Droopy wrote:Well, that's a pretty classic Signature Books kind of naturalistic/psychological explanation for pretty much all of Joseph's metaphysical experiences leading to the origin of the church. I would have to term this "anti-Mormon" in the sense that it directly confronts and denies core elements of what LDS understand to be the historic events leading to the restoration of the gospel.
[SNIP]
So this is, again, a direct oppositional perspective to that of the Church and the personal records of events left by the Church's founders. This would have to be understood as contra-Mormon, as the Church's origin claims must be rejected outright if your position is adopted.
[SNIP]
But if you don't accept this core concept, then this again, is "contra" to settled church teaching.
Okay. So, what sort of answers would a non-member have to give to your questions 2, 3, and 4 in order to not be considered "anti-Mormon" by you?
Because non-Mormons do deny core elements of what the LDS church claims and teaches. If we didn't, we probably wouldn't be non-Mormons; we'd be Mormons.