Simon Belmont wrote: Oh is it? Well, I know of no one in my chapel who believes in a literal world-wide flood, or that everything all past leaders have said is doctrine.
While many members do not believe in a global flood many do, especially the older generation. I think you are either lying here or are extremely ignorant. I suspect lying for the Lord is used by people wanting to defend the church on every issue, even the ones that they are obviously wrong about.
Stak wrote:So I denounce the Church when it needs to be denounced, I engage in a lot of behavior that is defiantly contrary to church standards (I engage in all seven deadly sins listed here), so according to Davis, my portrayal of the LDS Church and history carries a prior probability of over 50% of not being scrupulous, fair, or sympathetic.
Just to hedge off the poor reading abilities of some here, the quote above contains a disjunction in it (‘or‘), so what Davis actually wrote is that it only takes meeting one of those criteria to incur (and some how justify, which he never does) a high epistemic discrimination against texts.
You are not, by Dr. Bitton's definition, an anti-Mormon.
Bitton wrote:But if the author participates in anti-Mormon activities, denounces the church, or engages in behavior defiantly contrary to church standards, his portrayal of the Saints and their history will probably not be scrupulously accurate, much less fair or sympathetic.
He does not say "denounce the Church when it needs to be denounced," he says "denounce the Church," meaning, all of it, every time. I don't believe you do that (yet). The operative word in the next phrase is key: the behavior contrary to the Church must be defiantly contrary. This means you must actively reject Church standards in a rebellious manner. I don't think you are that extreme.
Am I reading this correctly?
You think that to be anti-Mormon (by the way, let me say how beautifully the word "Mormon" trips off your keyboard) one needs to denounce all of the Church, every time. So if someone ever says something nice about the church, that person cannot be anti-Mormon - especially if that person rejects church standards in a reasoned, non-defiant way?
I think that's neat!
NOMinal member
Maksutov: "... if you give someone else the means to always push your buttons, you're lost."
You think that to be anti-Mormon (by the way, let me say how beautifully the word "Mormon" trips off your keyboard) one needs to denounce all of the Church, every time. So if someone ever says something nice about the church, that person cannot be anti-Mormon - especially if that person rejects church standards in a reasoned, non-defiant way?
I think that's neat!
No, but you do need to be someone who denounces the Church as an institution, on the whole, not just a few things about it.
You think that to be anti-Mormon (by the way, let me say how beautifully the word "Mormon" trips off your keyboard) one needs to denounce all of the Church, every time. So if someone ever says something nice about the church, that person cannot be anti-Mormon - especially if that person rejects church standards in a reasoned, non-defiant way?
I think that's neat!
No, but you do need to be someone who denounces the Church as an institution, on the whole, not just a few things about it.
So is Grant Palmers book 'an insiders view of Mormon origins' an anti-mormon book?
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
jon wrote:So is Grant Palmers book 'an insiders view of Mormon origins' an anti-mormon book?
Yes.
He isn't an "insider" of "Mormon origins" at all... unless he is 200 years old.
Having read it, I wouldn't really describe it as anti-mormon. Anti-official Mormon history certainly, but I took it as a genuine attempt at reconciling the 'misdirection' by the Church in the telling of its history, with his personal belief that the Church was indeed true.
He wasn't disciplined by the Church for lying, as I understand it. Merely for expressing some things that were true that the Church didn't think were useful for people to know.
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
jon wrote:So is Grant Palmers book 'an insiders view of Mormon origins' an anti-mormon book?
Yes.
He isn't an "insider" of "Mormon origins" at all... unless he is 200 years old.
Try to be honest here SB. He does not say he is an insider of Mormon Origins, he says he is giving an insiders views of Mormon Origins. An insider we both know means one who is a member. His book is definitely not anti-Mormon, but with SB definition just about everything is, and the definition becomes useless.
Themis wrote:Try to be honest here SB. He does not say he is an insider of Mormon Origins, he says he is giving an insiders views of Mormon Origins. An insider we both know means one who is a member. His book is definitely not anti-Mormon, but with SB definition just about everything is, and the definition becomes useless.
I am being honest. The book is called: An Insider's View of Mormon Origins.
Palmer is suggesting that he is the insider. In order to be an "Insider" of "Mormon Origins" you'd have to be alive in the 1820s-1830s. What is the books publication date? 2002? So, let's say that Grant Palmer was -- and I'm being very liberal here -- born in 1830. In 2002 he'd have been 172 years old. Wouldn't that be some kind of record for human life?
Simon Belmont wrote: I am being honest. The book is called: An Insider's View of Mormon Origins.
Palmer is suggesting that he is the insider. In order to be an "Insider" of "Mormon Origins" you'd have to be alive in the 1820s-1830s. What is the books publication date? 2002? So, let's say that Grant Palmer was -- and I'm being very liberal here -- born in 1830. In 2002 he'd have been 172 years old. Wouldn't that be some kind of record for human life?
You are being dishonest. You know full well that it does not mean that. Not a surprise coming from you. Why don't you try an be honest and write what Palmer actually says which is an insider's View of Mormon Origins. Stop lying. You know perfectly well that insider in this instance means as a member of the church.