DAVEH: I've explained my definition on TT previously, and several
times today. While I don't disagree with Linday's definition, I think
if was awkwardly stated.
Now......I'm glad to hear you agree that you would qualify (by my
definition) of being an anti-Mormon. Do you fully understands how that
distinguishes you from another TTer (perhaps Lance or Terry) who shares
your dislike of LDS theology, but has a different intent and way of
discussing it on TT?
The reason I mention this is to explain why I would treat you
differently when I chat with you, compared to when I have a discussion
with somebody who isn't anti-Mormon. With you, I have to be very
careful in what I say, and how I say it. Why....because whatever I say
I expect you will take it apart any way you can and then toss it back
at me in a denigrating or mocking way. In the very least, I would
expect a combative attack on whatever I share with you.
With the other two (and most TTers, for that matter), I can be much
more casual and open, knowing that though they may disagree, they will
have a measured amount of respect for me as a fellow TTer and not go
out of their way to be disrespectful to my beliefs, even though they
may strongly disagree with them. Does that make sense, Kevin?
IOW.....I don't mind sticking my nose out a bit if I know that
folks aren't going to be taking sucker punches at it. But I am sure
reluctant to do so when a person avowed to giving those punches is
trying to set me up. I think that's the value of labeling some people
as anti-Mormon. It identifies those who are trying to get a jab in at
any cost.
So......at the risk of drawing a rebuke from the moderator, I would
label both you and Perry as anti-Mormons. If there are others, they do
not come across that way to me. (There have been some in the past, but
I don't know they are still on the list.) I do this not to put you
down, nor do I intend to denigrate your character. I do it merely to
categorize you in such a way that I can respond to you and Perry in an
appropriate manner.
BTW Kevin......you never did answer my question....
DAVEH: I'll ask again, Kevin........where did you get that........
Then why is everyone witha criticism of the church an "ANTI"
.......Any chance you will do so now, or admit that you were wrong in
your assessment? Or....is expecting an apology just wishful thinking
on my part?
Kevin Deegan wrote:
OK
So am I an ANTI?
why or why not
Any ANTi's on TT?
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.
|
