Why?

[Toms777]

Hi there!




Just for clarity, would you... could you define "critic", "anti-mormon", and "anti-mormonism".


~malaka~

• What and/or who is an Anti-Mormon?

• I see so often that people are "labelled" as anti-Mormon - in order to make sure that we understand the terminology, I would like to provide a couple of definitions:
  
  Mormon An ancient prophet believed to have compiled a sacred history of the Americas, which were translated and published by Joseph Smith as the Book of Mormon in 1830. A member of the Mormon Church. Also called Latter-day Saint. Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
  
  Mormonism The doctrine, system, and practices of the Mormons. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
  
  So, the term anti-Mormon, from my perspective would mean someone who is opposed to the character of "Mormon" in the Book of Mormon or opposed to people who are members of the Mormons church. I don't know anyone who is "anti-" either of these, but if there are any people who fall into either category, please feel free to identify yourselves.
  
  I do know Christian apologists who are opposed to Mormonism (the doctrine, system and practices of the Mormon church), and as such I could see their views referred to as anti-Mormonism, but that is quite different because it focuses on the belief system not the person.
  
  Have these terms been mis-used and mis-applied frequently when the intent was actually to refer to a position of anti-Mormonism?
  
  My reason for asking is that I do not like terms which focus on the person.
  
  When the term anti-Mormon is used, it either means that the person is labelled who hold that view, or the person is truly opposed to the person who is a Mormon.
  
  This is quite different than using the term "anti-Mormonism" which does not refer to the person who is a Mormon, nor the apologist who opposes Mormonism. It focuses entirely on the doctrine.
  
  If terms such as this are to be used, it is important that they be used properly and not used in a manner which might unfairly focus on the person, be it the Mormon or the apologist. If there are cases where a person truly is anti-Mormon, then we need to be careful to document that and to ensure that we are not unfairly targeting the person rather than the doctrine or views. If anyone wishes to label another person anti-Mormon, please, out of common civility and respect for others, use the terms properly and document in detail exactly where they have indicated that they are opposed to the character or Mormon specifically to people who are Mormons (not the doctrine).
  

 

[Toms777]

Hey Calgal,
None of the above, nor am I a member of any church or denomination. I just look at the facts, and study the Bible without preconceived notions. You can get some great understanding that way - try it.

I am also not a member of a church or denomination.

The proper way to interpret the Bible is not to interpret it but to study it and let it interpret/speak for itself.

 

[Toms777]

There is a thread on the Book of Mormon, which is getting to be very long, which might offer you a different perspective on the Book of Mormon.

The claim in Revelation is for the book of Revelation itself. When God told John to write Revelation, the rest of the Bible wasn't and wouldn't be compiled as we know it today for quite some time. This remark holds no water in my book.

"By their fruits ye shall no them" doesn't apply specifically to one group. Its universally meant for all.

TW

Actually, the Book of Revelation was the last book to be written in about 96AD.

 

[twhite982]

Actually, the Book of Revelation was the last book to be written in about 96AD.

Could you support this claim?

I've heard different.

TW

 

[Peterson]

TW
Once, a long time ago, when I was a Lutheran, my wife and I canvased the neighborhood for our local church. I have to admit it was one of the most interesting things I've ever done. You never know what you'll run into when you knock on a strange door. Maybe these trinitarians should brush up on their Bibles and hit the bricks, instead of complaining.

I refer to Hanegraaff as the "Bible BAD answer man."
It is a fact that local churches do not like "strangers" coming into their territory. Incidently, what happens when a JW knocks on a Mormon"s door? Hmmmm?

 

[Der Alte]

TW
Once, a long time ago, when I was a Lutheran, my wife and I canvased the neighborhood for our local church. I have to admit it was one of the most interesting things I've ever done. You never know what you'll run into when you knock on a strange door. Maybe these trinitarians should brush up on their Bibles and hit the bricks, instead of complaining.

I refer to Hanegraaff as the "Bible BAD answer man."
It is a fact that local churches do not like "strangers" coming into their territory. Incidently, what happens when a JW knocks on a Mormon"s door? Hmmmm?

I'm sure Hank Hannegraff would be interested if you could refute from scripture anything he says. Why don't you call him up sometime and take him on in person, or write a letter.

How do you know that Trinitarians are not out there hitting the bricks? That is the broad black brush of condemnation that you are railing against yourself.

The fact that you might not have done any door to door witnessing, when you supposedly were a Christian, does not mean by any stretch that everyone is or was like you.

 

[TOmNossor]

When the JW knock on my door I invite them in. I have spoken with the JWs for 2 years now. Once I made the mistake of explaining something I believed in opposition to their beliefs. It seemed to me that they were less than interested in this discussion, but I imagine I was somewhat at fault for this too. I have not done this since and they continue to come and ask about my family.

Recently, I wanted to know more about humility. They are a very humble people. I have set up two appointments that I might learn from these folks, but for some reason they have been unable to attend both times.

If you would like to see how I handle JW you might look at this link. It is on a Protestant board. They warned me against the JWs and I explained that I will understand JW beliefs from JWs not CARM. This was only a week before I came here invited by my Catholic friends (and latter by a LDS I didn’t know until I came here).



Since I have a pride problem, I will go so far as to point out that I practice what I preach when it comes to learning about the theology of others from those who hold the theology sacred.



Here is your link.

http://pub122.ezboard.com/fxcatholicfrm6.showMessageRange?topicID=604.topic&start=1&stop=20





Charity, TOm

 

[calgal]

Hey Calgal,
None of the above, nor am I a member of any church or denomination. I just look at the facts, and study the Bible without preconceived notions. You can get some great understanding that way - try it.

I actually got sucked into Mormonism that way. It was not a good thing at all. I mistook you for Danny Peterson so apologies for any sort of insult this offered (Danny Peterson is a Big ol' Mormon apologist by the way)

 

[Peterson]

Calgal,
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with Danny Peterson. No apologies necessary.

Der Alter, I've never had a trinitarian hit the bricks in front of my house, Oh, and Hanegraaff? I've got some rediculous stuff of his on tape. A real gem is one he did a few years back with a woman (forget her name) trying to Biblically justify Christmas. That was a real laugher. I'll dig it up if you like. It should be appropriate for the season.

I think I wrote him once and got back a list of books he would sell me on the subject, and a plea for money. Simon Magus would be proud.

 

[Toms777]

Could you support this claim?

I've heard different.

TW

There is much supporting this claim. For example:

http://www.thingstocome.org/datrev.htm

 

[Serapha]

The problem is, is that the critics DO NOT know the history of our religion.
They take only "parts" of that history which "sound" the worst and "interpret" it in the worst way possible.
This is DELIBERATE and INTENTIONAL as well as in ignorance.
They DO NOT include ALL the FACTS, facts which will change the conclusions of the critics to NULL and Void or to so what, as well as more often occurance of showing that their conclusions are outright LIES and the bearing of False Witness.





...

Anti-mormonism is NOTHING but perversions, half-truths, and out-right LIES about the Church of Jesus Christ in the last days.
All of which is exactly as Satan works, thus, it is nothing but in the service of the Evil one and NOT God or Truth.

One example of this fact is that Anti-mormonism lead more AWAY from Christ than it does too.

Hi there!



As one other member put it.....


*tap* *tap* *tap*



I am waiting for your personal definitions of "critic" and "anti-mormon".




~malaka~

 

[Im-a-thinkr-not-a-scholar]

I am not leeuniverse, but I will give you my definition of anti-mormon, and critic.

Anti-Mormon: Someone who stands outside an LDS Temple holding a sign telling you that you are going to hell.

Critic: Someone who claims to know LDS doctrine just as will if not better than someone who is LDS. Roger Ebert would be a movie critic.

Usually anti-mormons and critics will go far out of their way and do all that they can to prove the LDS church is false. The will spend more time trying to destroy the LDS faith rather than educate people of their own faith in their own faiths and not by bashing the LDS church.

I am sure you can think of anti-God people, just turn that to specifically the LDS religion.

 

[leeuniverse]

Anti-Mormon = Think Anti-Semite (Evil Fruits, serving Satan instead of God)

Critic = A lessor version of the above, though more benign and not necessarily "bad" as the above. (Good or Bad, simply depends)

However, I use the word's "interchangably" in various statements and explainations, not conforming to any particular standard.

Although, if I'm directly speaking about something or someone particular, if that person is respectfull in their dialoge thus simply disagreeing, then they would simply be called a "critic" because they exhibit "charactered" and "righteous" qualities despite their disagreement.

On the opposite end if a subject or person is being "low in character" thus "unrighteous" in their behavior and words with their disagreement, then they are clearly an "anti-mormon", for they are DESTROYERS instead of builders of the Fruits of God and Righteousness.
At least in this regard.... Many may be relatively decent people, but TRULY decent people would not be an "anti-anything" accept for evil, not towards things that serve GOOD.

Anyway, an anti-mormon is a Hate-Mongering bigoted Liar.
A critic can simply disagree and be mistaken.
However, these lines "blue" and aren't necessarily "absolute".
Anyone that preaches in any form against the Church is "techincally" an Anti-Mormon.
But critic is sometimes used by some in order to be respectfull of those who are respectfull.

Anti-Mormon: an·ti - mor·mon (nt- môrmn) n.
This term was originally adopted by the who opposed the Mormons (see B. H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.67, p.487 - 488) and apparently, was at one time the title of a localized political party who opposed the Saints and their political views (Kenneth W. Godfrey, BYU Studies, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 210). Although some Anti-Mormons today don’t care for the term (in fact some Anti-Mormons vehemently deny that the term fits their agenda), the label Anti-Mormon is a clinically accurate description of those who publish, preach, or otherwise attempt disseminate information contrary (anti) to Mormonism.

 

[Serapha]

Anti-Mormon = Think Anti-Semite (Evil Fruits, serving Satan instead of God)

Critic = A lessor version of the above, though more benign and not necessarily "bad" as the above. (Good or Bad, simply depends)

However, I use the word's "interchangably" in various statements and explainations, not conforming to any particular standard.

Although, if I'm directly speaking about something or someone particular, if that person is respectfull in their dialoge thus simply disagreeing, then they would simply be called a "critic" because they exhibit "charactered" and "righteous" qualities despite their disagreement.

On the opposite end if a subject or person is being "low in character" thus "unrighteous" in their behavior and words with their disagreement, then they are clearly an "anti-mormon", for they are DESTROYERS instead of builders of the Fruits of God and Righteousness.
At least in this regard.... Many may be relatively decent people, but TRULY decent people would not be an "anti-anything" accept for evil, not towards things that serve GOOD.

Anyway, an anti-mormon is a Hate-Mongering bigoted Liar.
A critic can simply disagree and be mistaken.
However, these lines "blue" and aren't necessarily "absolute".
Anyone that preaches in any form against the Church is "techincally" an Anti-Mormon.
But critic is sometimes used by some in order to be respectfull of those who are respectfull.

Anti-Mormon: an·ti - mor·mon (nt- môrmn) n.
This term was originally adopted by the who opposed the Mormons (see B. H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.67, p.487 - 488) and apparently, was at one time the title of a localized political party who opposed the Saints and their political views (Kenneth W. Godfrey, BYU Studies, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 210). Although some Anti-Mormons today don’t care for the term (in fact some Anti-Mormons vehemently deny that the term fits their agenda), the label Anti-Mormon is a clinically accurate description of those who publish, preach, or otherwise attempt disseminate information contrary (anti) to Mormonism.

Hi there!



So when you call people on this forum "anti-mormon" you actually intend to call them "Hate-Mongering bigoted Liar".

and that you relate your thoughts of "anti-mormons" to... "Evil Fruits, serving Satan instead of God"




So, your use of the word, which has been frequent on this forum, is actually in violation of the rules of the forum, isn't it?

~malaka~

 

[Serapha]

Anti-Mormon = Think Anti-Semite (Evil Fruits, serving Satan instead of God)

Critic = A lessor version of the above, though more benign and not necessarily "bad" as the above. (Good or Bad, simply depends)

However, I use the word's "interchangably" in various statements and explainations, not conforming to any particular standard.

Although, if I'm directly speaking about something or someone particular, if that person is respectfull in their dialoge thus simply disagreeing, then they would simply be called a "critic" because they exhibit "charactered" and "righteous" qualities despite their disagreement.

On the opposite end if a subject or person is being "low in character" thus "unrighteous" in their behavior and words with their disagreement, then they are clearly an "anti-mormon", for they are DESTROYERS instead of builders of the Fruits of God and Righteousness.
At least in this regard.... Many may be relatively decent people, but TRULY decent people would not be an "anti-anything" accept for evil, not towards things that serve GOOD.

Anyway, an anti-mormon is a Hate-Mongering bigoted Liar.
A critic can simply disagree and be mistaken.
However, these lines "blue" and aren't necessarily "absolute".
Anyone that preaches in any form against the Church is "techincally" an Anti-Mormon.
But critic is sometimes used by some in order to be respectfull of those who are respectfull.

Anti-Mormon: an·ti - mor·mon (nt- môrmn) n.
This term was originally adopted by the who opposed the Mormons (see B. H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.67, p.487 - 488) and apparently, was at one time the title of a localized political party who opposed the Saints and their political views (Kenneth W. Godfrey, BYU Studies, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 210). Although some Anti-Mormons today don’t care for the term (in fact some Anti-Mormons vehemently deny that the term fits their agenda), the label Anti-Mormon is a clinically accurate description of those who publish, preach, or otherwise attempt disseminate information contrary (anti) to Mormonism.

Hi there!



I want to advise you that whenever you use the term "anti-mormon" in your communications with me, I will consider it in the terms that you posted here which is an intentional use of a word to inflame and harass, unless, of course, you determine that your past practices are unacceptable conduct for ANY member of the forums, and express a change of heart...

~malaka~

 

[MizDoulos]

Note to all: Since there has been more bickering than productive discussions, this thread is temporarily being closed. Take time away from this thread and settle down; think twice before posting when it is reopened. There has been enough disharmony displayed to remove this thread but will give this topic another chance. However, when the thread is reopened, and the bickering, flamming, and disharmony continue, there will be warnings issued and/or the thread removed. This is an unofficial warning to all who participate in this thread.

Thank you for your cooperation.


[noflame][notroll]

 

[MizDoulos]

The thread has been reopened. Please be mindful of your responses and the forum rules.

Thank you.

 

[Spiceman]

Malaka, for the record, when I say anti Mormon, I simply refer to those who are apposed to the Mormons. Having read many of your comments in these threads, although you believe strongly in your own views I wouldn't necessarily say that you are anti Mormon. I accept that you are entitled to defend your beliefs and obviously that includes highlighting disparities between us and yourself. I don't have a problem with it. I only get upset when some in here intentionally flame us (you are not one of those IMHO).

 

[pmarquette]

By their fruits ye shall no them" doesn't apply specifically to one group. Its universally meant for all.

If you remain in the bible , and not in the book of mormon [ which is 1 reason we question LDS tenants ], we should get along

By the qualifications stated in the epistles , and the prohibitions of the old covenant , Joseph Smith was a bit shakey .... forbid magic , divination , husband of one wife , a nondrinker , not interested in filthy lucre , ethical , moral , etc. [ perhaps , so too were some of the patriarch's ... ]

When Paul cites places , events , people in the Epistles these have been confirmed historically , archelogically , etc. where the events in America
claimed by JS have not .

 

[Toms777]

Malaka, for the record, when I say anti Mormon, I simply refer to those who are apposed to the Mormons. Having read many of your comments in these threads, although you believe strongly in your own views I wouldn't necessarily say that you are anti Mormon. I accept that you are entitled to defend your beliefs and obviously that includes highlighting disparities between us and yourself. I don't have a problem with it. I only get upset when some in here intentionally flame us (you are not one of those IMHO).

Anti-Mormon according to the dictionary defintion refers to those who oppose Mormons as persons, not those who oppose Mormonism. Remember, using the term in the same manner as you use anti-Mormon, those who disagree with Christianity could be called anti-Christs.

I think it would be best to avoid use of this term as it focuses on the person both ways, rather than focusing on the doctrine, which should be the topic of the discussion....'nuff said.