Why don't you just list just ONE critic who has NOT been called an ANTI. That would seem to be an EASY TASK!
E-Z ..... Please give us ONE example of a well known critic who is not called an ANTI
I helped you out by cutting the list of possibles down since F.A.I.R has an extensive list of ANTI's online.
Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DAVEH: I did....me. But let me give you another, as you probably think of me as being somewhat an angel..... O:-)
I have a friend who was excommunicated from the Church for moral sins, and remains a non member to this day. He is disabled, and is relatively bitter about how life has treated him over the years, including the Church. He has over the years criticized the Church and many of its leaders, blaming them for the difficult position he perceives the Church has dealt him. What is the Church's reaction to his harsh complaints?.......it continues to pay his rent and provide a lot of his sustenance on a regular basis.
I am in a position where I can see both sides of the fence. He is not trying to publicly embarrass the Church....he just continually gripes about what he thinks the Church should do to help him. Does the Church consider him an anti....not for a second. From the Church's perspective, he's a child of God with needs that sometimes (frequently) are difficult to accommodate.
Kevin, I've tried to explain to you (or perhaps it was Perry) before how LDS folks define anti-Mormon. But for some reason you guys must not want to believe me. Let me quote another LDS guy (Jeff Lindsay) of his understanding of the meaning.....
What is an anti-Mormon? Anyone who disagrees with you?
This is a poorly defined term, but I would say that only the activists who attack the Church in a way intended to generate misunderstanding, fear, and shock are the ones who deserve the epithet of "anti-Mormons." Many such "Mormon bashers" feel that the end justifies the means, and use tactics that are incompatible with the truthful example of Christ.
There is plenty of room for decent people to disagree with us. Most Protestants and Catholics who disagree with us are not "anti-Mormons" but simply people of another denomination. But when someone strives to stir up anger toward the Church and relies on misinformation or half-truths, then I'm inclined to apply the anti-Mormon label--especially when they do it for a living. On the borderline are well meaning people who feel an evangelical duty to battle "cults" (which tend to be any group that disagrees with them) and write articles regurgitating the sensationalist and shocking diatribes of full-blooded anti-Mormons. I tend to call such critics anti-Mormons as well (I sense that they usually don't mind the title, unless they are posing as "loving friends of the Mormons" in order to launch more effective assaults on our faith). Those of other faiths who disagree with us and engage in civil discourse with us about their differences are usually not "anti-Mormons" but perhaps simply critics or just adherents of a different faith. http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_antis.shtml
.......Now, does........
Most Protestants and Catholics who disagree with us are not "anti-Mormons
..........sound to you that everyone witha criticism of the church an "ANTI"??? If not, then why do you persist in trying to get other TTers to believe such? Isn't that simply trying to spread an untruth?
Kevin Deegan wrote:Why don't you just list just ONE critic who has NOT been called an ANTI. That would seem to be an EASY TASK!DAVEH: That's an awfully lot of reading, Kevin. Why don't you just spare me the exercise by quoting the parts that support your statement that......
everyone witha criticism of the church an "ANTI"
.......Otherwise it would appear you are being purposefully deceptive by continuing to promote an untruth.
Kevin Deegan wrote:I will refer you to a LDS site:How about Spotting an Anti-Mormon BookDAVEH: I'll ask again, Kevin........where did you get that........
Then why is everyone witha criticism of the church an "ANTI"
........definition? When you make a pat statement like that, a lot of TTers may believe you. Sometimes I think you just make things up. Is this one of those times? And, IF you made it up, does that make you a liar?
Kevin Deegan wrote:Anyone who is is active and speaks out is labeled.Those inside the "church" gety EX'edOr gets put on the listDAVEH: Where did you get that definition, Kevin? I don't view it that way at all. If it were so, then I would be considered to be an anti!
Kevin Deegan wrote:Then why is everyone witha criticism of the church an "ANTI"Any relation to critics of Homo Sex behavior being called bigots?
Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:DAVEH: Perhaps we aren't as insecure as some might suppose.
Kevin Deegan wrote:This has to do with my question for Blaine as to why the LDS are so insecure that they need to call people "ANTIS"Of course there was no reasonable answer.-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
Discover Yahoo!
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online & more. Check it out!
