DAVEH: Nonsense, Kevin. I haven't given it much thought, but off the
cuff I would suggest it is the way the criticism is expressed that
determines if one is an anti-Mormon or not. I would not consider a
TTer who disagrees with me about a point of doctrine to be an
anti-Mormon. Nor would I consider one who believes and states that
they think JS is a false prophet. But....if someone starts ranting,
raving or waving underwear in my face....I would think they would
qualify.
Kevin Deegan wrote:
LDS folks did coin the anti-Mormon term, and
subsequently defined it in effect as one who actively preaches against
and denigrates LDS theology
Right so it is a defense/deflection mechanism to label those
that are engaged in any form of criticism of the church in an attempt
to dismiss ALL the Criticism since they are just ANTI's
Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: DAVEH:
Sure it does, Lance. Do Christians ever use the term, anti-Christian?
Or, is it simply a term Perry/Kevin coined to label me with in an
effort to disparage my belief in Jesus? That I would disagree or even
argue that another's Christian based theology is misguided would not
make me an anti-Christian. Even if I were right in that thinking, it
would not make the other person not a Christian. As long as his
beliefs are based on Christian principles (rightly or wrongly), he
would by dictionary definitions be a Christian.
LDS folks did coin the anti-Mormon term, and subsequently
defined it in effect as one who actively preaches against and
denigrates LDS theology. If Perry/Kevin want to label me
anti-Christian, then the similarity does not hold as I do not actively
preach against Jesus.
From what I remember about your posts, you do not actively
denigrate LDS theology. Hence I do not consider you an anti-Mormon.
That you don't believe LDS theology does not enter into the equation.
It is your intent, as I see it. Perry and Kevin on the other hand have
demonstrated their desire to actively fight against LDS theology, hence
they meet the qualification of being an anti-Mormon. Do you see the
difference....it seems to me to be the intent, as well as the actions.
I hope I've not muddled that up as I've tried to explain it.
Lance Muir wrote:
DH:Intent does play a part.
DAVEH: Ahhhhhhh, thanx for the explanation, Lance. I would
respectfully disagree with you though. If two people sincerely believe
they are Christians, in the sense of following the admonitions of Jesus
as they understand them, then neither would be an anti-Christian in my
opinion....even though one (or perhaps both) are believing/teaching
things about Jesus that may not be true. As I see it, an anti-Christian
would be one who is defiantly teaching against Jesus, and the term would
not apply to one who is simply mistaken in his beliefs about Jesus.
Lance Muir wrote:
When you believe/teach a Jesus who is other than Who He really is then,
you
are anti-Christ. This would/could be equally true of some non-Mormon
Christians.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
|
