LDS

[joobz]

Kindly note that I said the example was a "teaser."

Why be coy about it? If you have evidence to support an argument, present it.

 

[Dissolution]

Why be coy about it? If you have evidence to support an argument, present it.

Preferably on a separate thread, though.
Might be nice to have some answers for some of the questions that have been dodged on here, instead.

 

[dafydd]

Preferably on a separate thread, though.
Might be nice to have some answers for some of the questions that have been dodged on here, instead.

I don't think that the answers are covered by Mormon dogma.

 

[bruto]

So Skyrider's argument (connected with the argument against Cat Tale, it seems) is that you cannot call an organization hateful, even if you believe it is, because that implies that the persons belonging to it are hateful, which would come closer to a useful argument if the very person Skyrider is arguing against were not evidence contrary to that very assertion.

It seems pretty clear from this thread that the Mormon Church itself is a hateful organization in behavior if not in apologetics where certain groups are concerned, and also pretty clear that one can belong to the organization without espousing all its hateful beliefs. I am continually astonished that Skyrider does not see the extent to which Cat Tale and her ilk are arguments in favor of his belief, rather than against it. He asserts that the Mormon Church is not narrow minded and hateful, and that Mormons are thinking people who do more than just parroting the party line without thought, then blasts anyone who deviates from the party line.

It does no good to be in a big tent if you don't open the flaps.

 

[Foster Zygote]

It's amusing to see you and others discombobulate over it--thus wasting a defensive response-- when I have oh so many more, ah, poignant examples to give.

Then report said post to the moderators.

I think we've all seen what you clearly don't have. Namely, any rational reason to conclude that Joseph Smith was anything more than an opportunistic fraud.

 

[Craig4]

Nice thought but a tad naive. For it to be true (to cite just one example), the LDS Church would not be called a "hateful" organization and a "fraud" inasmuch as the majority of its members oppose gay marriage.



So if someone you publicly extolled, revered, worshipped, defended, made the locus of your life, etc., were referred to as "your holey spook," you wouldn't take that personally. Astonishing. If something similar were said about your mother or sister or brother--using the possessive your--you wouldn't take that personally, huh?

Kindly note that I said the example was a "teaser." It's amusing to see you and others discombobulate over it--thus wasting a defensive response-- when I have oh so many more, ah, poignant examples to give.

Okay, she came here to tell us about how great the Mormon Church is and how wonderful the founders are. There is a problem though; the LDS church is not wonderful and the founders of it were wretched human beings who exploited people in every way possible (including sexually). Had she not attempted to tell us something I and many other here know to be untrue it is highly unlikely anyone would have just volunteered that her (and your) religion is profoundly flawed.

I (and I suspect this is true of most or all people here) have never just gone up to someone minding their own business and pointed out the impossibilities of their religious beliefs. I have and will continue to engage aggressively people who attempt to sell me on joining their religion. Once you start selling me on your beliefs you've just entered the marketplace of ideas. I feel no reason to hold back in attempt to shake the beliefs of someone trying convert me. I do sincerely hope that a few of the people I've encountered have altered their beliefs based on the interactions they've had with me. If they don't like being challenged all they have to do is not engage me.

 

[bruto]

Maybe we need to update our fallacy names. "No true Mormon" comes to mind.

 

[sackett]

Way back upthread somewhere, Skyrider told me that I "need updating" on No Man Knows My History.

I should have called him on that immediately, and asked for some updating and any other relevant material on the accuracy of Fawn Brodie's biography of J. Smith.

Well, better late than etc. So, Skyrider: what's the true truth about No Man Knows My History?

 

[Olowkow]

No Man Knows My History, by Fawn Brodie is a view of Mormonism at odds with its members' beliefs. She drifted away from her Mormon roots while at the University of Chicago and became a well known apostate who wrote a far from hagiographic biography of Joseph Smith. Her style is often criticized as a psychobiographic and spiteful jumble of true history.

I would buy the book if it were offered on Kindle, but in the meantime, I found quite a few of the reviews helpful in my understanding of what I should expect. I read the one star reviews also. One of the 5 star reviews was very illuminating as it was a review of the reviewers.

This review is from: No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (Paperback)

By Fred L. Walker (Palm Desert, CA United States)

As a lifelong Mormon apostate and student of Mormonism's history, and who has seen it all and heard it all, I feel it is my responsibility, having seen this a multitude times in reviews of books deemed defamatory re their Church, there is a dependable swarm of Mormon shills dutifully rating such books, in many, if not most, cases not even having read them, with one star for no other reason than to pull down the average rating for that book in the hope of discouraging the curious. This falls under the heading of "Lying for the Lord," an historic pillar of that religion.
P.S.: For fun read a few of the one star reviews, chosen randomly.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

So if someone you publicly extolled, revered, worshipped, defended, made the locus of your life, etc., were referred to as "your holey spook," you wouldn't take that personally. Astonishing. If something similar were said about your mother or sister or brother--using the possessive your--you wouldn't take that personally, huh?

Like a politician? I've changed my political views over the course of my life. Like a religious figure? I've changed my religious beliefs over time as well. On other things? I'm usually more inclined to dislike something than to jump on board with the crowd regardless. You're drawing a false analogy to family members. We don't get to choose them out of our own free will.

However, since you insist on that analogy, suppose I were to go up to someone and say, "My family is going to come after your family and beat them up for their abhorrent abominable lifestyle." Does that statement sound at all familiar?

 

[skyrider44]

. . . So skyrider's argument . . . .

You make the sophomoric error of assuming that if an organization or a person disagrees with the views of another organization or person he/she ipso facto hates said organization/person. Do you suppose it's possible to disagree with the position of someone without hating them?

It seems pretty clear from this thread that the Mormon Church itself is a hateful organization in behavior if not in apologetics where certain groups are concerned . . . .

It's not clear at all. The LDS Church, for example, opposes gay marriage; it doesn't hate individuals who are gay. If you disagree with a co-worker about unions, does it follow that you necessarily hate him/her?

Your argument makes no sense.

Why is it that some folks are fast and loose in employing the word hate?

 

[bruto]

. . . So skyrider's argument . . . .

You make the sophomoric error of assuming that if an organization or a person disagrees with the views of another organization or person he/she ipso facto hates said organization/person. Do you suppose it's possible to disagree with the position of someone without hating them?



It's not clear at all. The LDS Church, for example, opposes gay marriage; it doesn't hate individuals who are gay. If you disagree with a co-worker about unions, does it follow that you necessarily hate him/her?

Your argument makes no sense.



Why is it that some folks are fast and loose in employing the word hate?

First of all, you seem utterly to misunderstand me. I do indeed believe that one can disagree with a position without hating the person. What I am saying is that your posts suggest that you have difficulty with that. Maybe it's just posting style, but you seem to believe that attacking Mormonism is an attack on Janadele personally. If there is a misunderstanding here, I suggest you take care with your own utterances.

Second, if the LDS church simply opposed gay marriage in the sense of not allowing it in its own bailiwick, there would be no argument. The rules change, I think, when it attempts to promote its agenda in civil law, and when the official church position considers homosexual activity immoral, and uses the term "so-called" in reference to the situation of being gay or lesbian, then I think the word "hate" is not misplaced. You can't really get away from it by saying that you love a person as a brother as long as he behaves according to your beliefs instead of his own.

 

[Olowkow]

. . . So skyrider's argument . . . .

Fixed quote.

 

[Olowkow]

. . . So skyrider's argument . . . .

You make the sophomoric error of assuming that if an organization or a person disagrees with the views of another organization or person he/she ipso facto hates said organization/person. Do you suppose it's possible to disagree with the position of someone without hating them?



It's not clear at all. The LDS Church, for example, opposes gay marriage; it doesn't hate individuals who are gay. If you disagree with a co-worker about unions, does it follow that you necessarily hate him/her?

Your argument makes no sense.

Why is it that some folks are fast and loose in employing the word hate?

Fine. Disagree all day long. Preach about it. Just don't spend a fortune to inculcate your fellow members and non-members with a false meme that takes on the force of law.

Once you try to influence law with your religious dogma, you're into the realm of lies and hate that ruin other people's lives. Sorry to say so, but if you don't get it, you are not trying.

Why is it that some folks are fast and loose in employing the word hate?

Because many of us have seen it before. We care about our friends. I don't like people who tell me I'm inherently flawed.

I don't see much difference between what you are saying and WBC's "God hates fags." You just do it with better vocabulary.

 

[bruto]

I don't hate blondes. They're welcome in my church as long as they dye their hair black.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I don't hate blondes. They're welcome in my church as long as they dye their hair black.

All their hair...and, of course, if they stop behaving so disgustingly and abhorrently "blonde"...

 

[Shalamar]

. . . So skyrider's argument . . . .

You make the sophomoric error of assuming that if an organization or a person disagrees with the views of another organization or person he/she ipso facto hates said organization/person. Do you suppose it's possible to disagree with the position of someone without hating them?



It's not clear at all. The LDS Church, for example, opposes gay marriage; it doesn't hate individuals who are gay. If you disagree with a co-worker about unions, does it follow that you necessarily hate him/her?

Your argument makes no sense.

Why is it that some folks are fast and loose in employing the word hate?

If all your church did was 'oppose' gay marriage within your church, that would be fine. But when it works to deny, or even remove the rights of others, who are NOT part of the church, then yes, I see it as hate.

Your church has the right to deny gay members a church wedding. It does not have the right to deny *anyone* a secular wedding, or a wedding at a different religious organization.

 

[RandFan]

The LDS Church, for example, opposes gay marriage; it doesn't hate individuals who are gay.

. . . So skyrider's argument . . . .

If all your church did was 'oppose' gay marriage within your church, that would be fine.

The Mormon Church does NOTHING to stop Mormon parents from throwing their gay children into the street. These children often cannot take care of themselves and end up as prostitutes and drug addicts. Many live short lives.

I know this, that isn't love.

 

[RandFan]

The LDS Church, for example, opposes gay marriage; it doesn't hate individuals who are gay.

The Mormon Church once opposed interracial marriage. Let me make a prediction, the Mormon Church will be just as on the wrong side of history on gay marriage as it was on interracial marriage.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Nice thought but a tad naive. For it to be true (to cite just one example), the LDS Church would not be called a "hateful" organization and a "fraud" inasmuch as the majority of its members oppose gay marriage.

I am perfectly within reason in classifying denying a basic human right to people based on the fan fiction of some ancient mythology as hatred.

And the Mormon Church has not stopped as simply opposing gay marriage. The person in this thread that assumes to speak for the Mormon Church has used very disgusting language in reference to homosexual peple and homosexual activities.

So if someone you publicly extolled, revered, worshipped, defended, made the locus of your life, etc., were referred to as "your holey spook," you wouldn't take that personally.

You can take it personally all you want. That doesn't change the fact that it isn't a personal attack under the MA or under simple logic.

You simply cannot go "X is so important to me and so central to my sense of self that any criticism of it is a personal attack on me."

Astonishing. If something similar were said about your mother or sister or brother--using the possessive your--you wouldn't take that personally, huh?

See above. Simply being able to take something personally is not the sole or even really large criteria for something being a personal attack.

Kindly note that I said the example was a "teaser." It's amusing to see you and others discombobulate over it--thus wasting a defensive response-- when I have oh so many more, ah, poignant examples to give.

Oh that is just so mature. Next you'll tell us you have a bigfoot body.

You make the sophomoric error of assuming that if an organization or a person disagrees with the views of another organization or person he/she ipso facto hates said organization/person. Do you suppose it's possible to disagree with the position of someone without hating them?

Yes. But it is rather impossible to refer to people as "disgusting" and "perverted" and "an abomination" without hating them.

It's not clear at all. The LDS Church, for example, opposes gay marriage; it doesn't hate individuals who are gay.

And the KKK doesn't hate black people, it just wants them to sit at the back of the bus.

If you disagree with a co-worker about unions, does it follow that you necessarily hate him/her?

If I tell them that the existence of a union is an immoral abnormation that makes the creator of the universe angry then... yeah.

Why is it that some folks are fast and loose in employing the word hate?

I know really? I mean what kind of world is it where I can't tell someone that I find their love for another human being a disgusting perversion without someone throwing the "h" word around. Madness I say! Madness