DiscussMormonism.com

J.S wrote:There's truth to the notion that there's no such thing as bad publicity. That's all he's really saying, though there's so much self-stroking in that article it's hard to read.

O.S wrote:Daniel,

I'm more than a little uncomfortable when we as LDS use the term "anti-Mormon". I guess I expected more from Mr. Peterson.

more from O.S wrote:The problem is, the label anti-Mormon allows us to ignore the differences between honest and honorable men and women who oppose us, on the one hand, and unprincipled villains, on the other. Thus, the LDS faith often removes itself from authentic religious dialogue and suffers from an inability to accept criticism from both outside and inside their religion.

By Mormonism's own standards, it would be "anti-Catholic", "anti-gay", and "anti-Baptist", etc., since it seeks to replace homosexual tendencies with heterosexual tendencies, and teaches that the Baptists and Cathollics are a derivative of the Great Apostasy and need a restored priesthood authority. Because Mormons claim they love homosexuals,Catholics and Baptists, and would confess to wanting the best for them, they would likewise object to the loaded "anti" labels.

It is a double standard and any serious LDS scholar always does their best to distance themselves from the use of the term.

As society changes what looks like "good fruits" change. Fighting to deny rights to a minority won't endear Mormons to the rising generation. All the publicity in the world won't change that, so I get what you mean. I also think bad publicity has an effect on those who are in the group, it can lead to an exodus as much as it does pique the interest of others.

Dr. Shades wrote:Eric:

Where are the comments? I clicked on DCP's link, but I didn't see any comments anywhere. . . nor did I see a link to any sort of "comments" page.

Ray A wrote:Here you go, Dr. Shades:

Dr. Shades wrote:Thank you. How on earth did you find it?