DAVEH: Wow.........your request keeps changing, Kevin. Seems like if
you don't like my answer, you simply change the parameters to try to
exclude the examples I continue to give you. Well........believe me,
the guy I mentioned to you in my previous response is well known in
Portland. (And probably SLC as well, I would imagine!)
However.....to satisfy your need to know of an example that is more on
the national level, I will offer you Richard and Joan Ostling, authors
of MORMON AMERICA. Their work was reviewed at........
http://www.irr.org/mit/Mormon-America-review.html
........and some of the reviewers comments are as follows........
Therein lies the key to what may be one of
the most insightful, fascinating and to some, troubling chapters of
Mormon America. For as LDS Church leaders have sought to faithfully
preserve their own history, they have succumbed to the temptation to
present only faith-promoting history — deliberately omitting,
suppressing, altering that which would adversely affect their spiritual
and social credibility.
.......Mormon America lauds the beneficial aspects of Mormon
society, a place where "Mormon people encircle each other in a loving
community, seeking to make sure that everyone has a divinely appointed
task and that no one’s needs are overlooked" (p. 385). But the authors
are also willing to address openly what Mormon Church leaders would so
like to keep out of view, e.g. "centralized control, continuing
secrecy, regimentation, … suspicion toward intellectuals, suppression
of open discussion, file-keeping on members for disciplinary use,
sporadic purges of malcontents, church education as indoctrination."
The Ostlings conclude, "Mormonism still desires mainstream status, but
largely in order to foster good public relations and proselytism" (pp.
382-383).
Mormon America is valuable not only as a superior source of information
on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but also as an
example of good religious reporting which informs rather than inflames,
is characterized by balance and perspective, and is, when necessary, a
graceful disclosure.
.......As the above shows, the Ostlings were not trying to show
Mormonism only in a good light, but rather they were trying to be
inflammatory in their remarks. Hence, they are viewed as critics by
LDS folks, but not as anti-Mormon.
Kevin, as I ponder your world, I would imagine the only critics of
Mormonism you know about are those who are in your anti-Mormon camp and
share your goals of defeating Mormonism.....or....you hear about the
critics of Mormonism who've brought their arguments to the media or
public in some way in an effort to embarrass the Church. By doing
such, they then automatically become anti-Mormon by definition.
From my perspective, I know lots of LDS (and non LDS, for that
matter) folks who are critical of certain aspects of Mormonism. I have
never considered them to be anti-Mormon by any means. A couple of my
best friends (a married couple) both have spoken much about what they
dislike about Mormonism as they view it in their lives. Both hold
temple recommends, and are probably far better Mormons than I will ever
be for a number of reasons. They are just very open and blunt about
their beliefs, and quite willing to discuss things that would make many
LDS folks uncomfortable. Does that make them anti-Mormon? Not for a
second, IMO. Now if they were to go public with some of their
concerns, in an effort to embarrass or influence the Church via the
public forum....then yes, I think they would qualify. But until they
cross that threshold, they are simply critics rather than
anti-Mormons.
Now....does that help you understand the meaning of anti-Mormon,
Kevin???
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!
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.
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 pu blicly 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 tru
thful 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 Book
DAVEH:
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'ed
Or gets put on the list
DAVEH:
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!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
|
