Questions for Droopy re: "Anti-Mormons" v. Non-Mormons

[_harmony]

Anytime you want to volunteer as a mod, I'll be there for ya, Tarski.

Wait! What?
Did you mean DarthJ or me? Who were you talking to?

Sorry, senior moment.

[_Darth J]

I think the clear resolution to my taking exception to Harmony's thread-splitting is to make Tarski a moderator.

[_Buffalo]

Honestly, the only thing that should be moved to telestial is blatant profanity, saying you effed someone's mother, etc, or perhaps very suggestive images.

[_MsJack]

/bump

Droopy ~ Now that you have time to post again, would you be kind enough to answer the questions that I posed in my OP?

Here they are again:

1. What is an "anti-Mormon"? What is a "non-Mormon"? Do you believe in any potential distinctions between the two? If so, what are they?

2. What answers could a "non-Mormon" give to the four questions you asked me (cited above) and not be considered an "anti-Mormon" by you?

3. Would you say that you are any of the following: anti-Protestant, anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu, anti-FLDS, etc.? Why or why not?

4. Ronald Reagan was baptized into the Disciples of Christ as a young man and attended a Presbyterian church later in life. However, he was apparently quite familiar with the LDS church and had a high degree of admiration for it, deliberately employing more Mormons in his administration than any other President in U. S. history. In the wake of Reagan's passing in 2004, his Special Assistant Stephen M. Studdert recalled:

President Reagan knew and loved the Latter-day Saints, and held the Church in highest regard.

From his days as governor of California, the doctrines and the principles of the Church drew his frequent interest. As president he often asked about Church programs . . .

His relationship with God was personal and deep. He loved America, and often spoke of its divine purposes and the inspired origins of its Constitution. At one meeting when visiting Church headquarters, he tenderly shared those sentiments with Church leaders . . .

In a non-partisan manner, leaders of the Church were his welcome guests. Church Presidents Spencer W. Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson and Gordon B. Hinckley were each warmly received into the Oval Office with respect and friendship.

Ronald Reagan truly admired the Latter-day Saints. His administration included more members of the Church than any other American president, ever.

Three of us, David Fischer, Gregory Newell and I, served on his personal White House staff. Richard Wirthlin was his chief strategist. Ted Bell served as Secretary of Education, Angela Buchanan was Treasurer, Rex Lee was Solicitor General. His White House included Roger Porter, Brent Scowcroft, Richard Beal, Blake Parish, Jon Huntsman Jr., Dodie Borup and Rocky Kuonen, and there were many other Latter-day Saints throughout his Administration. President Thomas S. Monson served on a Presidential Commission on Volunteerism. Others were ambassadors. LDS senators and representatives were held in special regard, and the Tabernacle Choir was his special inaugural guest.

Studdert testifies that Reagan was familiar with "the doctrines and principles of the Church." Given the fact that Reagan was deeply passionate about God, and yet never joined the LDS church, it seems highly probable that he must have rejected at least some of the core truth claims on which the LDS church was erected.

Do you believe the late President Ronald Reagan was an "anti-Mormon"? Why or why not?

Thanks in advance.

[_Droopy]

1. What is an "anti-Mormon"? What is a "non-Mormon"? Do you believe in any potential distinctions between the two? If so, what are they?

1. A non-Mormon is self explanatory, no? It is someone who is simply not a member of the Church.

2. An anti-Mormon is someone who holds theological/social/moral/cultural views different than those claimed as true by the Church and who actively, ether in a professional or non-professional capacity - attacks, impugns, and defames the Church, its ideas, its leaders and/or members, who actively seeks opportunities to do so, and who has placed him/herself in a position of opposition to the Church; not just a difference of viewpoint, but a position of active counter influence and criticism.

2.1 At a deeper level, and ideas, concepts, or doctrines which are incompatible, incongruous, and inharmonious with the gospel of Jesus Christ are "anti" in the sense of leading human beings away from God and from salvation and exhalation. Any doctrine or teaching that is makes claims counter to those of the gospel are "contra" or "anti" in nature, in a gospel sense. This sense, however, need not encompass active, open opposition or hostility, which would place it beyond the scope of point 2.

2. What answers could a "non-Mormon" give to the four questions you asked me (cited above) and not be considered an "anti-Mormon" by you?

Any, in the second sense, and none, in the first, if that person was actively hostile to and in continual, conscious conflict with those teachings. One can hold theological views very different from those of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, and not be "anti" that church, even though those views are, according to LDS doctrine, utterly incomparable. One cannot, however, be openly and aggressively hostile to and in a position of continuous and especially public conflict with that church and its teachings without being considered anti-Mormon. I could not, for example, spend years online posting attack after attack after attack, on point after point, on the Catholic church, without at some point being considered anti-Catholic (think Dave Hunt, for one example).

I don't mind being considered "anti" with regard to my views of leftism, because that's what I am: openly and assertively hostile to it.

3. Would you say that you are any of the following: anti-Protestant, anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu, anti-FLDS, etc.? Why or why not?

I must be, by definition, in disagreement with many of the core doctrines and concepts espoused by these systems of religion. Am I "anti" any of them? As to any particular doctrine or concept, I would have to be considered so, in a fundamental philosophical sense. Am I hostile to them, in some sense? That's another question. As a LDS and as a believer in classical liberal values, I support the absolute right of those religions to exist and worship whatever they may, according to whatever philosophical system, so long as in doing so my inalienable rights are not violated.

Many of the doctrines of the gospel are "contra" to those of these other systems, and in that sense I, or any other LDS must be considered as "opposed" to those doctrines, but - and this is key - in intellectual and spiritual terms based upon the principles that underlie the spreading of the gospel. This means that, while I would, as a missionary, make every civil attempt to persuade members of these other religions to "come unto Christ," I would never publish books, lectures, or make a practice of posting anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, anti-Buddhist etc. polemics on message boards, or attacking their leaders, traditions, and culture. This does not mean that I would not and have not criticized elements of the culture or beliefs of others, but only in an intellectual manner within certain ground rules.

Further, I find philosophical value in various elements of all these traditions, and so simply taking a general "anti" position, in the sense of what happens a great deal on message boards such as this with regard to the Church, or in the sense of the evangelical counter-cult movement, would be of little value to me, or to most LDS serious about their religion.

Do you believe the late President Ronald Reagan was an "anti-Mormon"?

Of course not.

This is a misrepresentation of the nature and purpose of my thread about William. I've already corrected similar misrepresentations from you

You were caught in that debacle with your pants down around your ankles, Jack, so no need to go over and over it again here. I and others have our personal views of the hunt for carrion that went on against Will and which then spilled over towards Wade and myself,and you and others have theirs. Danial has been the butt of a year in, year out witch hunt of similar proportions by others than yourself, so this is all rather old news, and, indeed, typical for the anti-Mormon world -not just differing views, but "anti" hostility and a desire to destroy and wreck.

Also let it be noted: since I passionately believe that William's behavior was not in accordance with the high standards of my husband's church, I consider my thread documenting and complaining about said behavior to be one of the most "pro-Mormon" things I have done all year.

Alas, your self justification here has risen to epic proportions. Yes, as we all admitted at one point or another, a tiny smattering of Will's online statements aimed at other posters, as made over some years, were not up to Church standards, Some of mine have not been. Some of most apologists has not been. And? The claims that were actually made about Will, driven by the howling winds of pseudo moral outrage coming from many of those who's own online verbiage has always been shamelessly vulgar, profane, and personal in tone, and from which the tragicomic claim of "misogyny" were derived, were about as transparent as any could have been, Jack.

Really now, we can all cease playing the head games now, regarding that episode.

I'm going to break the rest of this up for another post.

[_Droopy]

I believe that both men and women were created in the imago Dei, that both sexes were intended to have "dominion" (authority) over the earth, and that God's original design for the sexes did not include the subordination of one sex to the other.

I agree, and if you will take notice of the words I bolded above, you may also take note of the fact that the Church holds to no such doctrine of the subordination of one sex to the other, personal interpretations and cultural accretions over the centuries notwithstanding. The patriarchal order, and the division of labors and emphasis as to home and work have nothing to do with a subordination/domination paradigm. That's an imposition from outside the restored gospel.

In marriage, I believe that authority is shared between husband and wife and submission is mutual, that husband and wife should decide how to run their family based on their talents, needs, and interests.

Most do, and the Church has little to say relative to this. However, the man does preside in the home according to worthy and righteously held Priesthood authority, and is the highest governing authority in the home according to that calling and responsibility. So long as he governs righteously, he acts as a Prophet to his immediate family and as the "head" of that household in spiritual and temporal affairs. In actual practice, of course, man and wife counsel together, and, in many cases, the man assumes and agrees with the views and perspectives of his wife. None of that, however, disrupts the patriarchal nature of the family as revealed through he prophets as the optimum structure of family life.

In the church, I believe that all roles are open to both men and women in accordance with the gifting and calling of the Spirit, including leadership roles such as the offices of pastor, elder, and deacon.

In your church, that may be the case. In the Lord's authorized church and Kingdom, it is not. Woman's talents and gifts have nothing to do with the organized structure of the Kingdom as to its institutional governance. Woman and men are different, in a number of subtle yet profound ways for a number of reasons, reasons that what is now long experience has shown it is unwise to tamper with based on our own human nostrums as to how God should have set things up.

Most of all, I believe that any system which necessarily subordinates women to men regardless of circumstances or restricts a woman's ability to serve within the body of Christ or teaches women that their worth lies primarily in their ability to produce children does violence to God's plans for women and his original design for the sexes.

We are all restricted in our ability to serve in God's Kingdom both by inherent and mortal limitations that are a natural aspect of our present existence. In any case, there is no doctrine in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints that asserts a woman's only worth is in the production of children. I'll soon weary of combating strawmen if this keeps up.

I believe that the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ was the most powerful being in the universe, and that he emptied himself, gave it all up, and made himself lower than the lowest people in existence so that he could exalt the weak and downtrodden and share that former glory with others, making himself "the firstborn among many brothers and sisters" (Romans 8:29). Jesus showed that the only power and authority worth having is the kind that you voluntarily give away in order to effect the transformation of others.

I'm really not at all sure of what your trying to say here, but clearly, Jesus Christ was not the most powerful being in the universe in his preexistent state. Biblically, he was subordinate to the Father in power and glory at that time, and attained "all power" in Heaven and earth only after his death and resurrection. Further, Jesus did not "empty" himself and "give it all away," He entered a human organism for a number of reasons, one primary one being that he could effect the Atonement, for which such an incarnation was required of himself as a personal being. During that time, however, his fundamental status as the God of the universe did not change, as his vast powers of discernment and miracle working ability attested.

The only folks who ever "gave away" all their power and potential were the one third of the children of the Father who choose to rebel against the light when it was clear and obvious to them.

Theologically and philosophically, I'm not at all sure it is even intelligible to talk about God "giving away" his power, if his power is conceived of as being inherent in him as an underlying ontological aspect of his core existence. If God could actually "empty himself" of his own intrinsic power, glory, and exhaled attributes, this, it seems, would be tantamount to God becoming non-God; it would amount to God having the power to negate himself as a divine being, to negate, in other words, not himself per se, but his divinity.

That is Christian egalitarianism. It has nothing to do with socialism or my desired system of civic government.

And how would you describe that?

[_Gadianton]

Woman's talents and gifts have nothing to do with the organized structure of the Kingdom as to its institutional governance. Woman and men are different, in a number of subtle yet profound ways for a number of reasons, reasons that what is now long experience has shown

So much for allowing the free market to allocate labor.

[_Hades]

Droopy,

I believe that the Mormon church should be required to report its financials or lose its tax exempt status.

Would you consider this to be an anti-Mormon stance?

Along with this I believe that any tax exempt organization should be required to report its financials.

[_Kevin Graham]

An anti-Mormon is someone who holds theological/social/moral/cultural views different than those claimed as true by the Church and who actively, ether in a professional or non-professional capacity - attacks, impugns, and defames the Church, its ideas, its leaders and/or members, who actively seeks opportunities to do so, and who has placed him/herself in a position of opposition to the Church; not just a difference of viewpoint, but a position of active counter influence and criticism.

And here is that fine line that always gets droopy into trouble. For him, you can have your opinion, but you better keep it to yourself or else you're going to be called an anti-Mormon. This is the standard attitude among so many of self-ordained sheep herders in the Church. They know their job becomes infinitely more difficult when those with a "different viewpoint" make their views known, because these instances are almost always followed with evidence and argument. When this happens, the intellectually deficient folks like Droopy are immediately threatened by truths they don't know how to handle other than to attack those who hold them. Like he said, he is worried about the "influence" that can come from expressing one's difference of opinion. These opinions frequently are supported by truths that run contrary to the delusion they have embraced for so many years, so they respond indignantly, pretending to be innocent victims of some heinous intellectual crime, when in reality, the greatest enemy to Mormonism is truth and reason. When you have no intellectual case for defending your beliefs, the simple maneuver is to poison the well, or shoot the messenger. This is the apologist's best friend and favored technique, and we see it employed by apologists like Dan Peterson, Pahoran, Crockett, Loran, Schryver, etc. They're proud of it, and they don't really give a damn how fallacious it really is. It is integral to the standard Mormon defense and they don't want to abandon it.

This is why so many people fall into Droopy's category of anti-Mormon. You can have your difference of viewpoint, just keep it to yourself or else we're going to attack you. So much for liberty and freedom of speech. You have it, but he's gonna make you pay for expressing it.

Mormons on the other hand, are free to have "difference of viewpoint" and pound on thousands of doors a week to express it, and that doesn't make them anti-anything. The classic double-standard born from the Mormon mind.

But the fact is you cannot express a difference of viewpoint without being in a "position to influence" others. It just doesn't happen. So Droopy tries to make a distinction with no difference. If you say anything about your beliefs that run contrary to Mormon claims, then you're an anti-Mormon, period. He cannot realistically make a distinction among those who have different views who are innocent bystanders, and those who are rabid anti-Mormons. His mind isn't geared to handle nuance. The Mormon mind works in black and white. "Choose ye this day" is branded into their "us vs. the gentiles" psyche. You're either in the Church of God, the Church of the Devil, or you're perfectly ignorant about anything regarding the Mormons and a potential convert. So very few people fall into the latter category, especially on these forums, which is why everyone usually falls onto one side or the other in Droopy's small, yet made-up mind.

Can anyone name a single person on these forums who has made his or her "difference of viewpoint" known publicly, and who hasn't been the recipient of droopy's semi-literate, rhetorical wrath?

[_bcspace]

An anti-Mormon is someone who holds theological/social/moral/cultural views different than those claimed as true by the Church and who actively, ether in a professional or non-professional capacity - attacks, impugns, and defames the Church, its ideas, its leaders and/or members, who actively seeks opportunities to do so, and who has placed him/herself in a position of opposition to the Church; not just a difference of viewpoint, but a position of active counter influence and criticism.

My definition is simpler. An antiMormon is anyone who intentionally lies about or negatively sensationalizes about the Church.

So it is possible for a critic of the Church to not be an antiMormon under this definition. But such are few and far between.