Which is more bigoted, chanting “F the Mormons”

[Chap]

Getting to know people from almost every group/religion results in a better overall (approve - disapprove) rating of the group. The glaring exception: Mormons!

John 15:18–19 “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.”

Matthew 5:10–11 “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.”

Luke 6:22–23 “Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven.”

2 Timothy 3:12 “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.”

1 Peter 4:14 “If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you.”

The scriptures suggest that hostility toward believers is not accidental but part of the pattern of discipleship: being “not of the world” provokes opposition.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/n ... 449304007/

Regards,
MG

NB, however: Jesus does not say "Blessed is everybody whose conduct is subjected to widespread condemnation and/or ridicule". After all, the late Mr Epstein is not blessed, is he? It has to happen to you for the RIGHT REASON, e.g. it has to be "for the Son of man’s sake".

The mere fact that most non-Mormons who learn about the conduct of the leadership of the CoJCoLDS tend to think and speak badly of it proves nothing about what Jesus would think of the said organisation as presently constituted. The reason for the ridicule and condemnation may simply be because the leadership merits ridicule and condemnation. A major part of the reason for that may be because the CoJCoLDS's attitude to its huge bank balances and investments looks to be very decidedly 'of this world'.

[Limnor]

Since you’re inviting a reset, here are the two points I’d genuinely like clarity on:

1. The sports analogy doesn’t really support your claim. I’m old enough to remember when a BYU player took off his helmet to swing it at someone, so the idea that “BYU fans and players are always calm and collected” doesn’t land.

I think I remember that. Isolated incident. Not a large crowd of people chanting in unison.

And more importantly: missionaries introducing polite critique is still critique—which is fine, because it’s okay to critique ideas we don’t agree with. Your argument seems to insist members never criticize others’ beliefs while the foundational book explicitly does that.

I suppose you can take it how you want it. Actually, it comes down to whether or not God was the one doing the critique. That matters. You don't think it was God so we will differ on whether the critique has any merit beyond man's reasoning.

2. About “twisting your words.” Where exactly did that happen? I’m asking directly, because that accusation keeps being repeated without any concrete example.

It's been that way for a long time. I would suppose that if you put 'Marcus' or 'twisting' or 'straw man' into the search bar and do a little digging around you'll come up with a myriad of examples. You can simply choose not to believe me and/or take me seriously on this point I guess.

Bonus point from your own analogy:

The Cincinnati incident ended with fines and public apologies. If we apply your logic consistently, does that mean the Church should apologize for the Book of Mormon essentially calling every other belief corrupt?

Cincinnati football game involved a specific incident with legal and social consequences (fines, apologies). The Book of Mormon is a foundational scripture. Apologizing for it would undermine the Church’s own doctrinal authority. Categorically different. Institutions apologize for actions, not for the existence of their core beliefs.

Religions rarely apologize for their truth claims, even if those claims are exclusivist.

In Cincinnati, the offended party was a civic/legal authority requiring restitution. In scripture, the “offended party” is essentially everyone outside the faith. If applied consistently, every exclusivist religion would need to apologize for its core doctrines, which would make the act of holding distinct beliefs impossible.

Regards,
MG

I’m asking you for a concrete example of “twisting” because you’re the one making the accusation. If the only evidence for “twisting” is whatever I can manage to dig up on my own, then you’re shifting the burden of proof onto me to substantiate a claim you made.

If we’re being even-handed, BYU fans have definitely had their moments too—including the 2021 women’s soccer incident and the Duke volleyball case—it’s hard to maintain the idea that BYU crowds are uniformly “calm and collected.” No fan base has a spotless record, BYU included.

The point of the Cincinnati analogy wasn’t that the Church should issue a formal legal apology for its scriptures; it was to show how selectively the “respect for others” standard is being applied. Opposing fanbases chanting an obscenity are expected to own the harm and make it right; a foundational text calling every other church corrupt is treated as beyond scrutiny. Many denominations have explicitly acknowledged wrongdoing and apologized for it, particularly racism. I suppose the LDS Church could just “fixed it,” like the priesthood ban, with no apology.

That’s not just “holding distinct beliefs”; it’s saying that when criticism comes from your side in God’s name it doesn’t count as criticism, but when it comes from anyone else it’s persecution.

That’s exactly the inconsistency people have been trying to put their finger on.

Further, this is where the epistemology gets tricky. If the process was Joseph putting a stone in a hat—the same stone and method he used to seek treasure—and reading words that appeared, then the Book of Mormon isn’t really “Nephi’s vision from an angel”—it’s whatever Joseph said he saw in the stone. It honestly stuns me that anyone can still accept the traditional story of the Book of Mormon’s origins after watching Nelson’s demonstration.

[I Have Questions]

I think I remember that. Isolated incident. Not a large crowd of people chanting in unison.


I suppose you can take it how you want it. Actually, it comes down to whether or not God was the one doing the critique. That matters. You don't think it was God so we will differ on whether the critique has any merit beyond man's reasoning.


It's been that way for a long time. I would suppose that if you put 'Marcus' or 'twisting' or 'straw man' into the search bar and do a little digging around you'll come up with a myriad of examples. You can simply choose not to believe me and/or take me seriously on this point I guess.


Cincinnati football game involved a specific incident with legal and social consequences (fines, apologies). The Book of Mormon is a foundational scripture. Apologizing for it would undermine the Church’s own doctrinal authority. Categorically different. Institutions apologize for actions, not for the existence of their core beliefs.

Religions rarely apologize for their truth claims, even if those claims are exclusivist.

In Cincinnati, the offended party was a civic/legal authority requiring restitution. In scripture, the “offended party” is essentially everyone outside the faith. If applied consistently, every exclusivist religion would need to apologize for its core doctrines, which would make the act of holding distinct beliefs impossible.

Regards,
MG

I’m asking you for a concrete example of “twisting” because you’re the one making the accusation. If the only evidence for “twisting” is whatever I can manage to dig up on my own, then you’re shifting the burden of proof onto me to substantiate a claim you made.

MG 2.0 does that an awful lot for assertions he makes. Particularly when he’s made an assertion that he knows is bogus.

[MG 2.0]

I think I remember that. Isolated incident. Not a large crowd of people chanting in unison.


I suppose you can take it how you want it. Actually, it comes down to whether or not God was the one doing the critique. That matters. You don't think it was God so we will differ on whether the critique has any merit beyond man's reasoning.


It's been that way for a long time. I would suppose that if you put 'Marcus' or 'twisting' or 'straw man' into the search bar and do a little digging around you'll come up with a myriad of examples. You can simply choose not to believe me and/or take me seriously on this point I guess.


Cincinnati football game involved a specific incident with legal and social consequences (fines, apologies). The Book of Mormon is a foundational scripture. Apologizing for it would undermine the Church’s own doctrinal authority. Categorically different. Institutions apologize for actions, not for the existence of their core beliefs.

Religions rarely apologize for their truth claims, even if those claims are exclusivist.

In Cincinnati, the offended party was a civic/legal authority requiring restitution. In scripture, the “offended party” is essentially everyone outside the faith. If applied consistently, every exclusivist religion would need to apologize for its core doctrines, which would make the act of holding distinct beliefs impossible.

Regards,
MG

I’m asking you for a concrete example of “twisting” because you’re the one making the accusation. If the only evidence for “twisting” is whatever I can manage to dig up on my own, then you’re shifting the burden of proof onto me to substantiate a claim you made.

If we’re being even-handed, BYU fans have definitely had their moments too—including the 2021 women’s soccer incident and the Duke volleyball case—it’s hard to maintain the idea that BYU crowds are uniformly “calm and collected.” No fan base has a spotless record, BYU included.

The point of the Cincinnati analogy wasn’t that the Church should issue a formal legal apology for its scriptures; it was to show how selectively the “respect for others” standard is being applied. Opposing fanbases chanting an obscenity are expected to own the harm and make it right; a foundational text calling every other church corrupt is treated as beyond scrutiny. Many denominations have explicitly acknowledged wrongdoing and apologized for it, particularly racism. I suppose the LDS Church could just “fixed it,” like the priesthood ban, with no apology.

That’s not just “holding distinct beliefs”; it’s saying that when criticism comes from your side in God’s name it doesn’t count as criticism, but when it comes from anyone else it’s persecution.

That’s exactly the inconsistency people have been trying to put their finger on.

Further, this is where the epistemology gets tricky. If the process was Joseph putting a stone in a hat—the same stone and method he used to seek treasure—and reading words that appeared, then the Book of Mormon isn’t really “Nephi’s vision from an angel”—it’s whatever Joseph said he saw in the stone. It honestly stuns me that anyone can still accept the traditional story of the Book of Mormon’s origins after watching Nelson’s demonstration.

I think that you are conflating two different categories. That is why I mentioned that it looks like you've committed a category error. You are comparing sports fan's behavior vs. scripture. One involves civic responsibility, and the other involves religious truth claims.

Sports fans chanting obscenities ought to be accountable for their behavior in a civic gathering where there are certain expectations of behavior. Again, scripture, whether you believe it or not, expressing exclusivist doctrine is categorically different. For you to associate one with the other as being equivalent is what I would disagree with. Treating them the same misrepresents the nature of religious belief.

If you want to critique LDS doctrine, continue to do so directly as you have done, but don't twist it into a false equivalence.

I think I would just as well leave it there.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

It’s only a false equivalence if I claimed scripture and sports fans are the same—I didn’t. I’m comparing the standards of accountability, not the categories.

But I’m willing to table as well.

[MG 2.0]

It’s only a false equivalence if I claimed scripture and sports fans are the same—I didn’t. I’m comparing the standards of accountability, not the categories.

But I’m willing to table as well.

Thanks for the conversation.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

...Sports fans chanting obscenities ought to be accountable for their behavior in a civic gathering where there are certain expectations of behavior. Again, scripture, whether you believe it or not, expressing exclusivist doctrine is categorically different. For you to associate one with the other as being equivalent is what I would disagree with. Treating them the same misrepresents the nature of religious belief...

Mentalgymnast has brought up a couple of interesting problems here. First of all, he seems to be arguing that the "expectations of [civil] behavior" in everyday life shouldn't apply to Mormon scripture and Mormon doctrine. To me, this is a clear admission that criticizing others is not only allowed in religious settings but will be engaged in as a matter of right, contradicting his earlier assertion that Mormons don't criticize others beliefs.

And second, his cut-and-paste of his AI's use of the phrase "expressing exclusivist doctrine is categorically different" by definition further undercuts his argument that Mormons don't criticize others beliefs. He seems to be arguing that if Mormons feel they have a right to criticize, they can, regardless of civility. The categorical difference seems to lie exclusively in the realm of "my beliefs are right, yours are wrong."

[I Have Questions]

I think that you are conflating two different categories. That is why I mentioned that it looks like you've committed a category error. You are comparing sports fan's behavior vs. scripture. One involves civic responsibility, and the other involves religious truth claims.

Sports fans chanting obscenities ought to be accountable for their behavior in a civic gathering where there are certain expectations of behavior. Again, scripture, whether you believe it or not, expressing exclusivist doctrine is categorically different.

Let me see if I’ve got this right. MG thinks that sports fans should be accountable for what they say in a public setting. So if a sports fan chants that a skin of blackness is a sign that person has been cursed by God (they might phrase it in an abbreviated way) they are accountable for saying that. But if a religion’s scripture says the same thing, even if those scriptures are being actively promoted to the public by a sales team of tens of thousands of people , that’s okay.

Have I got that right MG?