The Term Anti-Mormon

[_harmony]

Also, I'm Irish, we don't know how to be subtle. It's genetic.

I like this. I'm going to use this one, if you don't mind. My Irish is a couple of generations back, but it's there on my momma's side.

[_hobo1512]

Also, I'm Irish, we don't know how to be subtle. It's genetic.

I like this. I'm going to use this one, if you don't mind. My Irish is a couple of generations back, but it's there on my momma's side.

Go for it!!

I am Irish on both sides. Parents, grandparents on both sides, etc.

My great great grandparents on both sides emigrated from Limerick County.

The only thing missing is the red hair....LOL

[_Res Ipsa]

Hi Ceeboo,

A belated Happy Thanksgiving to you as well.

When I was LDS, "anti-mormon" was a label used to dismiss certain speakers, authors, and books as being untrustworthy sources of information. It meant that whatever they had to say could be rejected wholesale without considering the actual substance of what they had to say. Not only that, it meant they were to be actively avoided because their falsehoods could deceive one into following a path that would lead to the loss of one's testimony of the church.

No longer being LDS, I recognize it as just another example of the ad hominem fallacy.

Back in the day, I would not have considered you an anti-mormon.

[_palerobber]

Put Jews in the place of Mormons and smith and co. and we have a very bigoted piece of writing.
whereas if you put "chocolate cake" in the place of "Mormons" this piece of writing takes on a rather tasty tone.

also, and if you put "F. You" in place of "Shalom" then i begin to think hobo1512 is just making a personal attack.

there's lots to consider here.

Have you been following this?

Did you see my previous post that stated, Mormons get upset when you use their own theology and history to debunk their claims? That is what this post is about.

Just so you know, I don't use the F bomb, even covertly. I'm old. I could die at any time. I don't want there to be any confusion as to what my last words or statement were. I will tell you something straight up. Also, I'm Irish, we don't know how to be subtle. It's genetic.

It is you my friend that appears to be making a "personal attack", so you might want to think about that. Trust me, when I make a personal attack you will see/know the difference.

Shalom (I really mean Shalom)

i was merely responding to why me's observation that when you selectively replace words in someone else's writing it can (surprise) change the meaning to something quite different. : )

[_hobo1512]

i was merely responding to why me's observation that when you selectively replace words in someone else's writing it can (surprise) change the meaning to something quite different. : )

The key word in your statement is "selectively".

That is something he is know for. You realize nobody takes him seriously right?

[_hobo1512]

Also, I'm Irish, we don't know how to be subtle. It's genetic.

I like this. I'm going to use this one, if you don't mind. My Irish is a couple of generations back, but it's there on my momma's side.

Here is another one you can use if you like. I personally like it because it takes people a few seconds to realize you've insulted them.

"You are the reason there is a tag on my toaster telling me not to take it in the shower."

It's amazing the looks you get after using that one.

[_honorentheos]

Hey again, honor

Hi Ceeboo,

I appreciate your willingness to engage the questions.

No problem.

My questions were aimed at refining how I would answer your question in the OP. Your answer to the first question was not surprising as you've clearly said you are against Mormonism.

Yes.

Where I'm unclear, even still, is if you feel Mormonism provides the appropriate rights and knowledge sufficient for salvation?

Why do you keep asking me questions about Salvation?
And how do your questions about my view of Salvation help you refine how you would answer my question in the OP (Did you read the OP because I authored it and I don't recall mentioning Salvation in it?)

You realize I don't believe the claims of Mormonism, yes?

Okay. I'll try to answer your question about Salvation as best I can.

"Appropriate rights and knowledge sufficient for Salvation"? (That sounds so clubish to me)
In my view - Salvation is not a right, it is not earned by knowledge, it is not provided by a religious organization, and it certainly is not determined by what labels we place firmly upon our broken chests.

Salvation is a gift (Free) that is given to ALL of creation by the Creator. (The Good News)

Along those lines, I'd agree that Mormonism inherently places itself above others on the grounds to acheive exhaltation in Mormon theology requires membership and faithfulness to Mormonism.

You would agree with me on what?

There is a highest heaven in the Mormon faith that is unattainable without becoming Mormon.

Yes, I am aware of this.

Does Mormonism teach that just becoming Mormon is enough to live with God for all eternity? My understanding is that Mormonism teaches an entire list of things one must do to earn this Salvation.

That was a lot of work for a simple reply to the OP question.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Hi Ceeboo,

Why do you still wonder if you're an anti-mormon as you suggested earlier in your response to Shiloh after all of the responses you had received up to the previous page?

[_why me]

Hi Ceeboo,

Why do you still wonder if you're an anti-mormon as you suggested earlier in your response to Shiloh after all of the responses you had received up to the previous page?

I think that he is obsessed with this idea. I don't think that this is the first time he had a question about the term and whether or not he was antimormon. He needs to get over the term.

[_RockSlider]

If I was writing Ceeboo's OP, I would refine it to state I'm anti-lds.inc not anti-Mormon. Of course in Ceeboo's case I'm sure there are doctrines he is opposed to (Mormonism). Thus there really are three separate aspects here; The church, the doctrine, the members.

There is a big difference between the member and the church. It would seem that it would be a good thing if the church WAS/IS the accumulative whole of its members, but this is not the case (hidden finances and huge corporation being one big clue).

Unfortunately the members have been so indoctrinated that the "Church" is what is true, and they do view their selves as synonymous with the church. More subliminally they would also associate closely with the doctrine ... i.e. an criticism of the doctrine is a criticism of them. I suppose this is true with any church.

The sad part is that the members are what is the beautiful part of Mormonism. I believe that is what Ceeboo is saying, he loves and respects the members but has issues with their doctrine and their church.

[_why me]

If I was writing Ceeboo's OP, I would refine it to state I'm anti-lds.inc not anti-Mormon. Of course in Ceeboo's case I'm sure there are doctrines he is opposed to (Mormonism). Thus there really are three separate aspects here; The church, the doctrine, the members.

Of course, referring to the LDS church as LDS,inc may be classified as antimormon. Just like if I were to refer to the catholic church as catholic church, inc. Or The lutheran church, inc. etc.

Here is a clue for you: the members are the church. If the members were all crap heads, the church would suffer accordingly. One cannot separate the members from the church and its teachings on how to be christlike.