The term ANTI is a device for member protection from "TRUTHS
that are NOT USEFUL"
DAVEH: While that may or may not be the case (you took the
quote out of context, and did not connect it to ANTI by the
author.....so it is not possible to determine if that is what the
author was suggesting), it does not lend any evidence to your claim
that........
everyone witha criticism of the church an "ANTI"
..........So it remains, Kevin....are you going to admit to being wrong
that EVERYBODY critical of the Church is an anti-Mormon? Or are you
going to continue promulgating that lie?
Kevin Deegan wrote:
Well first of all they are shocking!
"Some things that are true are not very useful."
some LDS bend the truth to fit the prophets
some LDS bend the prophets to fit the truth
Besides it is only their opinion right?
The term ANTI is a device for member protection from
"TRUTHS that are NOT USEFUL"
DAVEH:
Just how does any of what you posted below support your statement
that.........
everyone witha criticism of the church an "ANTI"
..........Kevin? To assume your limited observations qualify you to
judge the proper meaning of the term has led you to a false
conclusion. Quoting the below material does not define anti-Mormon any
more than it supports your erroneous assumption that you know better
what the term means than the folks who coined it. Do you recognize the
error of your previous understanding of the term?
Kevin Deegan wrote:
DAVEH: I'll ask again, Kevin........where did you get
that........
Then why is everyone witha criticism of the church an "ANTI"
I have observed such.
It is not about TRUTH it is abouth Promoting the Church:
Apostle Oaks "My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve
is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the
authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the
gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything else may be sacrificed
in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts.
Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental
to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try
to limit its influence and that of its authors." Introduction p. xliii f28 in Inside the Mind of Joseph
Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon
1981, Apostle Boyd K. Packer made these comments:
There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of
Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or
faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not
very useful.
Historians seem to take great pride in publishing something
new, particularly if it illustrates a weakness or mistake of a
prominent historical figure....
The writer or the teacher who has an exaggerated
loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a
foundation for his own judgment....
That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the
weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A
destroyer of faith... places himself in great spiritual jeopardy.
He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be
among the faithful in the eternities...
In the Church we are not neutral. We are one-sided.
There is a war going on and we are engaged in it. (Brigham
Young University Studies, Summer 1981, pages 263-64, 266-67)
In 1985, after Dialogue published my article "LDS
Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904," three
apostles gave orders for my stake president to confiscate my
temple recommend.... I was told that three apostles believed I was
guilty of "speaking evil of the Lord's anointed." The stake president
was also instructed "to take further action" against me if this did not
"remedy the situation" of my writing controversial Mormon history.... I
told the stake president that this was an obvious effort to intimidate
me from doing history that might "offend the Brethren" [i.e., the
highest leaders of the church]... The stake president also saw this as
a back-door effort to have me fired from BYU.... I find it one of the
fundamental ironies of modern Mormonism that the general authorities
who praise free agency, also do their best to limit free agency's
prerequisites - access to information, uninhibited inquiry, and freedom
of _expression_. (Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History,
Edited by George D. Smith, 1992, pages 90-93, 95)
Faithful History, pg 103 footnote 22 Michael Quinn
called into the office of Apostle Boyd K. Packer: When Elder Packer
interviewed me as a prospective member of Brigham Young University's
faculty in 1976, he explained: "I have a hard time with
historians because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting;
it destroys. I could tell most of the secretaries in the
church office building that they are ugly and fat. That would be the
truth, but it would hurt and destroy them. Historians should tell only
that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting."
Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
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 ca n and t hen 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 tryin g 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 u sually 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.
|
