Gangbang at MADB

[_dartagnan]

I as blown away tonight when I ventured on over to MADB and saw a discussion started by someone named "Carmella" called: "Christians and Mormons have some profound differences, attempting to look at some facts." This discussion has already reached 24 threads in a single day! That's got to be some kind of record. I read through the first three threads before realizing Carmella had been banned, so i jumped to the end to see if it was closed. It isn't, apparently, but apologists are yacking about how she is over at te CARM board talking about her experience. What did she do that was so horrible?

She began to illustrate why she believes the gap between Mormonism and Christianity was too wide to ignore. Mormons then jumped on her like a bunch of madmen enjoying a cheap gangbang. She was immediately attacked from the get-go, as she was told she wasn't going to be treated with respect unless she agreed Mormons were Christians. And even if she didn't believe it, she should say it anyway. You know, because Mormons are really that petty. Even if you're not telling the truth, if it is music to their ears, then they want to hear you say it: "Yes, I think you're Christians!" She said:

"Christians see God as unchangeable, immutable and infinite. There never was a time that God was not God. He is Spirit, He is our Creator, and He is above and transcends creation. He is NOT that creation."

That's true. And it is also true that this is very different from the Mormon concept of God. So why the indignantion from venom dripping apologists? Why is it bigotry simply to highlight differences? What if Robinson refused to write a book with Blomberg, simply because Blomberg refused to believe Mormons are Christians? What is all this talk about creating crossover dialogue between faiths if Mormon apologists are so stingy that they cannot engage those who already begin with these presuppositions. Of course they do. That is the reason for the divide. How can you dialogue with people you refuse to talk to? And why would anyone want to talk to Mormons who insist you have to abide by their rules and call them what you clearly don't believe them to be?

Anyway, as one apologist after another took cheap jabs at her from every angle, the worst thing she ever said, from what I could tell anyway, is that she doesn't believe Mormons are Christians. Apparently that warranted her banning.

As a Mormon defender that assertion used to bother me too, but it was mainly for the same reasons Mormons get upset with Huckabee for drawing people's attention to the Lucifer/Jesus/brother issue. Its just one of those objections we'd prefer to never be raised. It becomes too annoying, too troubling and too exhausting to defend the position. Dan Peterson had to write an entire book on this one subject.

[_Mister Scratch]

Kevin, you need to check out my OP on the thread called, "Prof. P: 'JWs are Dangerous'". In it, I cite a post from him in which he brags about (as you put it) the "gangbang" thusly:

But the boundaries of Christianity, historically speaking, have been extremely wide. Mormons easily fit within them.

(I demonstrate this at considerable length, in great detail, with an abundance of documentation, in the book Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints. The sheer existence of this book reduced your associate, poor Carmella, to sullen, insulting rage. Perhaps you should read it!)

I cannot help but feel that all of this behavior is symptomatic of Romney "post-partum," so to speak....

[_dartagnan]

But the boundaries of Christianity, historically speaking, have been extremely wide. Mormons easily fit within them.

And its up to Mormons to decide if they fit in?

And why would they want to given the history of LDS bigotry towards "Christendom"? Brigham Young loved to speak of a dichotomy between the saints and the rest of Christianity. But in those days, there was no need to be accepted by Christianity. Now there is.

Now, because it is politically necessary, Mormonism feels it needs to avoid all suspicion of being a sect or cult by riding on the coat tails of Christainity, claiming it is just another one of the many versions of it.

Well, when you have the vast majority of the Christian world decidely accepting thousands of sects as Christian, while at the same time rejecting Mormonism as non-Christian, I think that this in and of itself proves there are serious differences that cannot be overcome. The nature of God is only one of them.

Imagine a politician running as a Republican, even though virtually all of his policies reflect a liberal philosophy. It isn't bigotry for the Republican party to question the veracity of a candidate's conservativeness, and to make judgments based on the hit and misses, so why is it bigotry for the Christian world to decide if they want Mormonism to be included under the rubric of Christian?

I see Mormonism and Mormons trying to cling onto the Christian label for the same reasons politicians need to be considered part of a big, powerful political party. Even if they aren't really Republican or Democrat, they know that to be successful, they need to convince everyone that they are one or the other. They know they don't have much of a chance running as an independent or Libertarian, just like Mormons know they don't have much of a chance being successful without claiming some kind of implicit marriage with what everyone considers Christianity. The Church doesn't send missionaries out into the Christian world to say, yes, our theologies are very different, let me tell you why ours is right. Instead, they're supposed to follow the steps outlined for them, and the first one is BRT (Build Relationships of Trust) by trying to first convince the prospective convert that Mormons are really just Christians like anyone else.

When someone with some sense of theological knowledge intervenes with questions, the Mormon cries bigotry.

[_charity]

I hear she even brought up the "adieu" argument. Of course, Daniel Peterson did stand up for her. But, of course, you didn't mention that.

[_Mister Scratch]

Here, again, is DCP's basic credo (I cited this in my OP on "Does DCP Require Biased Moderation?"):

(1) Christ called Joseph Smith.

(2) Those who reject Joseph Smith reject Christ's calling of Joseph Smith.

(3) Therefore, they oppose Christ.

(4) Accordingly, they are anti-Christ.


It's simple, really. And, if you believe (1), it follows quite naturally.

All Christians, save LDS, are "anti-Christ." The Good Professor could not have spelled out his fundamental views any more clearly.

[_dartagnan]

Dan stood up for her how?

Learn to read for once in your life. I said I read the first couple of threads until I realized she was banned. Then I stopped. I jumped to the last page only to see if it had been closed, but I saw Dan complaining about her participation at CARM. Where did he stand up for her? Does that mean she will be unbanned?

[_dartagnan]

That's interesting scratch.

So if Christians say Mormons aren't X, when Mormons would like to ba called X, they're bigots.

But when Mormons say Christians are Z, when Z has extremely negative connotations in Christian tradition, it isn't bigotry because that is just how Mormon thought works.

What a tangled web we weave, huh?

[_Mister Scratch]

The TBMs at MAD, apparently, are so fired up about this Pyrrhic "victory" over carmella, that urroner has posted this:

I would like to commend the mods for their patience with CARMella. If CARMellahad been Mormon and this board had been CARM or RFM, and CARMellahad behaved similarly on those boards, CARMellawould have been banned before her, and I'm assuming CARMellais a she type person from the name, though she isn't behaving like one, second post. Not only would she have been banned, but her solitary post would have been deleted and the bots on those boards would have been instructed to pretend that she never existed and they would have fallen into line, shades of 1984. Too bad she doesn't realize that

Later, this mumbo jumbo turns up:

We need an apologetics style fighting game. Maybe we can call it "Mormon Kombat". Yeah, that would be funny. It could be all the prophets from the Bible, Book of Mormon, and current church against the most "effective" of the anti-mormon crowd. Elijha's fatality could be summoning a hoard of she-bears to kill the enemy. One ant-mormon could throw DVD's, and another could incite a killer mob.


We will have a Troll Fest on St. Patrick's Day. Invite them all back then. ~ Mods

(red mod font ibid)

Gee, are they really thinking about inviting me, Kevin, and Harmony back into the arena??? Can Bob McCue, Steve Benson, and Tal Bachman come too???

Next, take a look at this crap, from the main, 24-page-long thread:

I don't gloat over Carmella in the slightest. I find her inability to grasp what seems to me a painfully obvious point truly stunning. I don't think it's the result of intellectual incapacity; she seemed reasonably bright. I chalk it up, instead, to the awesome power of ideology to blind people -- and I don't think anybody is altogether exempt from this -- so that they can't see relatively obvious things.

(bold emphasis added)

Wow! He's really gotten smoked on this one. Take a look at this cheap shot doled out to CKSalmon:

It's really starting to feel like home here on MADB. Oh, the righteous contagion of it all. It's almost as if we matter.

Whatever. We don't interact much anymore, by my design if not by yours.

But when you write to me lately, it just about always seems to be about your moral superiority. Which pretty well confirms that I've chosen the right option.

Ha!

[_CaliforniaKid]

Here, again, is DCP's basic credo (I cited this in my OP on "Does DCP Require Biased Moderation?"):

(1) Christ called Joseph Smith.

(2) Those who reject Joseph Smith reject Christ's calling of Joseph Smith.

(3) Therefore, they oppose Christ.

(4) Accordingly, they are anti-Christ.


It's simple, really. And, if you believe (1), it follows quite naturally.

All Christians, save LDS, are "anti-Christ." The Good Professor could not have spelled out his fundamental views any more clearly.

Where did DCP say this?

[_Mister Scratch]

Here, again, is DCP's basic credo (I cited this in my OP on "Does DCP Require Biased Moderation?"):

(1) Christ called Joseph Smith.

(2) Those who reject Joseph Smith reject Christ's calling of Joseph Smith.

(3) Therefore, they oppose Christ.

(4) Accordingly, they are anti-Christ.


It's simple, really. And, if you believe (1), it follows quite naturally.

All Christians, save LDS, are "anti-Christ." The Good Professor could not have spelled out his fundamental views any more clearly.

Where did DCP say this?

Here's the link:

DCP Calls Christians "anti-Christ"