DCP Gets Reamed by GoodK

[_beastie]

For the record, I think it's pretty rude for someone to openly oppose my cherished religious faith.

This statement was made by Scott Lloyd, and is revealing.

There are some people who are so enmeshed, as far as their most core identity, with their religion that criticism of that religion feels like a personal attack. In addition, many believers in our society go around with the idea that religious belief is privileged in some way that other beliefs are not. In other words, if a belief is religious in origin, it ought not to be criticized.

I think this is a self protective mechanism that believers have developed, because they actually realize many, if not most, of the claims associated with religious beliefs would not withstand strict, nonprivileged scrutiny.

[_BishopRic]

"Perhaps the best approach would be to apply to each group the name that its adherents use in referring to themselves."

This is really a fascinating statement! I think we all know the reason mopologists persist in labeling us "anti-Mormon" is the instant discrediting it does. If we were to consistently use "the cult" when referring to Mormonism, I'm sure they would not appreciate it much. I'm certainly okay with "exmo," or "postmo," so I think if we both use "the term we like to use," I'll do the same for them.

Deal?

[_Dr. Shades]

The most disturbing point made I thought was that "Mormon" applies broadly to all facets of LDS people and therefore implies that if someone takes issues with Mormon doctrine then they are opposed to Mormon people generally.

But yet they'll quickly differentiate between the two when circumstances require, such as when they say that "the church is perfect even if the members aren't." They want to have it both ways.

The fact that a term distinguishes one group from another is not only not enough, by itself, to make it illegitimate, it is essential to the nature of language. The adjective happy distinguishes the noun it modifies from nouns modified by the adjective unhappy.

In that case, why do so many Mopologists have a problem with the terms "Internet Mormon" and "Chapel Mormon?"

[_The Nehor]

In that case, why do so many Mopologists have a problem with the terms "Internet Mormon" and "Chapel Mormon?"

Because we see no such difference. It is also too commonly used to deny those on the Intratubes legitimacy. While the Internet Mormons may think that, your average Chapel Mormon does not. We're portrayed as desperate irrational defenders and they're the sheep. It gets annoying.

Edit: If Internet Mormon meant Mormons active on the Internet then the term might make more sense but I doubt it would be a useful term.

[_Dr. Shades]

In that case, why do so many Mopologists have a problem with the terms "Internet Mormon" and "Chapel Mormon?"

Because we see no such difference.

Did Noah's flood cover every square inch of the earth?

[_The Nehor]

In that case, why do so many Mopologists have a problem with the terms "Internet Mormon" and "Chapel Mormon?"

Because we see no such difference.

Did Noah's flood cover every square inch of the earth?

I have no idea.

[_beastie]

Funny, the only google hits for "National Anti-Mormon League" are the one article DCP links (which simply states:

One branch of the family converted early on to Mormonism. William Huntington served Joseph Smith as member of the High Council. One of his daughters married Brigham Young; another married Heber C. Kimball. Meanwhile, the daughter of a different Huntington family married a preacher who boasted of being President of the National Anti-Mormon League. These folks obviously had strong beliefs.

And then DCP, cloaked as FreeThinker on Z, mentioning it on a thread devoted to the same topic years ago:

A

nalytics, the term anti-Mormon is sometimes used by certain anti-Mormons (e.g., Robert McKay, Ed Decker, John L. Smith, Mike Reynolds, and others) as a self-description. There used to be a "National Anti-Mormon League" back in the early twentieth century. Plainly, people who claim the label for themselves do not see it as intrinsically pejorative or demeaning. Indeed, quite to the contrary, they seem to wear it as a badge of honor and distinction.

http://p094.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... D=24.topic

This was a hot topic on Z because of Pahoran's fondness of the term, plus his history of linking anti-mormonism to mass murder.

[_Mister Scratch]

In that case, why do so many Mopologists have a problem with the terms "Internet Mormon" and "Chapel Mormon?"

Because we see no such difference. It is also too commonly used to deny those on the Intratubes legitimacy. While the Internet Mormons may think that, your average Chapel Mormon does not. We're portrayed as desperate irrational defenders and they're the sheep. It gets annoying.

Edit: If Internet Mormon meant Mormons active on the Internet then the term might make more sense but I doubt it would be a useful term.

But both of these terms are far more clear and definitionally stable than "anti-Mormon." Further, how is there no difference? Unless I'm mistaken, these terms were coined to describe the state of ignorance---Mopologetically speaking---that many LDS live in. I mean, how many TBMs are up to speed on the two Cumorah's theory? How many TBMs know about Joseph Smith's polygamy/polyandry/face in the hat? They are legion, and many of them turn up on MAD, wondering why in the hell nobody ever bothered to tell them about these embarrassing aspects of the Church. The sad fact is that the institutional Church believes that "some kinds of truth aren't very useful," and, in essence, this has led to a culture that keeps secrets, and which hides a lot of skeletons in the closet. "Milk before Meat" is what has caused the Internet/Chapel Mormon divide.

[_Mister Scratch]

Funny, the only google hits for "National Anti-Mormon League" are the one article DCP links (which simply states:

One branch of the family converted early on to Mormonism. William Huntington served Joseph Smith as member of the High Council. One of his daughters married Brigham Young; another married Heber C. Kimball. Meanwhile, the daughter of a different Huntington family married a preacher who boasted of being President of the National Anti-Mormon League. These folks obviously had strong beliefs.

And then DCP, cloaked as FreeThinker on Z, mentioning it on a thread devoted to the same topic years ago:

A

nalytics, the term anti-Mormon is sometimes used by certain anti-Mormons (e.g., Robert McKay, Ed Decker, John L. Smith, Mike Reynolds, and others) as a self-description. There used to be a "National Anti-Mormon League" back in the early twentieth century. Plainly, people who claim the label for themselves do not see it as intrinsically pejorative or demeaning. Indeed, quite to the contrary, they seem to wear it as a badge of honor and distinction.

http://p094.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... D=24.topic

This was a hot topic on Z because of Pahoran's fondness of the term, plus his history of linking anti-mormonism to mass murder.

Yeah, DCP really got busted by GoodK on this one. It just further goes to show why he so infrequently offers citations. Every time he does, his dishonesty/bumbling is revealed, and he has to go slinking off in order to lick his wounds. Also: I didn't realize how old the "National Anti-Mormon League" was. I guess this is another case of The Great Professor leaning on very, very old sources in a desperate attempt to make a point.

[_The Nehor]

In that case, why do so many Mopologists have a problem with the terms "Internet Mormon" and "Chapel Mormon?"

Because we see no such difference. It is also too commonly used to deny those on the Intratubes legitimacy. While the Internet Mormons may think that, your average Chapel Mormon does not. We're portrayed as desperate irrational defenders and they're the sheep. It gets annoying.

Edit: If Internet Mormon meant Mormons active on the Internet then the term might make more sense but I doubt it would be a useful term.

But both of these terms are far more clear and definitionally stable than "anti-Mormon." Further, how is there no difference? Unless I'm mistaken, these terms were coined to describe the state of ignorance---Mopologetically speaking---that many LDS live in. I mean, how many TBMs are up to speed on the two Cumorah's theory? How many TBMs know about Joseph Smith's polygamy/polyandry/face in the hat? They are legion, and many of them turn up on MAD, wondering why in the hell nobody ever bothered to tell them about these embarrassing aspects of the Church. The sad fact is that the institutional Church believes that "some kinds of truth aren't very useful," and, in essence, this has led to a culture that keeps secrets, and which hides a lot of skeletons in the closet. "Milk before Meat" is what has caused the Internet/Chapel Mormon divide.

I would disagree. I learned about the Two Cumorah Theory when I was about 12 from my brother who had read a book. Joseph Smith's polygamy I learned in Seminary. I learned about the face in the hat from reading books on Church History. I learned about the different sealings Joseph used while discussing something with my Bishop. All this happened before I went on my Mission. My first foray into online Apologetics was only a few years ago and I didn't have much culture shock at all.

I do think there is a degree of arrogance among some in the Church that they know it all. It's characterized by the question: "Is that pertinent/necessary to my salvation?" It's a general laziness. The best cure is a regimen of scripture reading (all the scriptures), deep prayer, and a deep desire to know more. I had some of this affliction. I lost it at the age of 17 when some terms started flying that I did not know. After that I devoured my parent's gospel library, dove into Nibley, deepened my admiration for C.S. Lewis (who I already loved for taking me to Narnia as a child), and generally started asking God the questions I used to think were impious as no one else seemed to ask them.

The term Anti-Mormon is also loosely defined though. On that I agree. I generally use the term critic as it seems to be less charged unless I mean Anti-Mormon in the sense of those who would like to see my Church destroyed and me dead. Those occasions are thankfully rare.