What is an anti-Mormon?

[_huckelberry]

Well but here is the problem. I do not think there is a consensus on what it actually takes for Mormonism to be "true" even among those that stand up month after month in F&T and say they "know it is true".
The same applies to categorizing critics and anti-Mormons. What we see when someone claims to be able to categorize people like this, is the underlying erroneous assumption on the part of that person that he or she is somehow able to judge what defines true Mormonism.

dear fence sitter, I believe we have fallen into that most difficult of argument. We both agree but keep suspecting a disagreement lies somewhere.

It is true different people will have a variety of meaning to the phrase the church is true. However if you ask me I will say it is not. That should be a fairly clear distinction of viewpoints. However to kick the dead horse it could be noted that saying the church is not true has a spectrum of meanings. It might take some work to decide just what color of the spectrum of disbelief best describes my view. I then may shift on the measure in a month though maintaining my fundamental disbelief.

[_Fence Sitter]

Well but here is the problem. I do not think there is a consensus on what it actually takes for Mormonism to be "true" even among those that stand up month after month in F&T and say they "know it is true".
The same applies to categorizing critics and anti-Mormons. What we see when someone claims to be able to categorize people like this, is the underlying erroneous assumption on the part of that person that he or she is somehow able to judge what defines true Mormonism.

dear fence sitter, I believe we have fallen into that most difficult of argument. We both agree but keep suspecting a disagreement lies somewhere.

It is true different people will have a variety of meaning to the phrase the church is true. However if you ask me I will say it is not. That should be a fairly clear distinction of viewpoints. However to kick the dead horse it could be noted that saying the church is not true has a spectrum of meanings. It might take some work to decide just what color of the spectrum of disbelief best describes my view. I then may shift on the measure in a month though maintaining my fundamental disbelief.

Well if we agree, would you shut the door on the way out?

[_cwald]

Now, Niadna may turn out to be a troll. But I see no evidence of trolling yet. She does display some behaviors that I think are common for LDS folks when they converse with critics. But that doesn’t make her a troll, unless you define troll as “Mormon”.

I don't KNOW if Niadna is a troll or not, BUT, I DO know that HER writing style IS annoying as HELL.

[_Themis]

...and you get to define "TBM," why, precisely?

I suppose for the same reasons you do with critic and anti.

But 'picking and choosing' what to believe is what TBM's DO. Or rather, are supposed to do. We ARE supposed to examine, study and pray about everything, right? Get the confirmation of the Holy Ghost for beliefs?

Have you? Can you provide an example of an LDS doctrine you got confirmation of the Holy Ghost that was wrong. You say you don't believe in a global flood which is the doctrine of the church, but was that because the Holy Ghost told you it was wrong or was it from secular learning of science and how the world works? by the way I would say you are a cafeteria Mormon and TBM. Cafeteria to me fits better with chapel Mormon then TBM.

[_Themis]

You are quite right. I can.

But I can have an even more wonderful life with them. Why are you so intent on converting me to your POV?

It is a Mormon discussion board, so people come to express opinions. People normally like it if people agree with their opinion, although some are not interested in being converted away from their opinions. I have no problem being converted to another way of thinking. Make the argument and I will check it out.

[_Shulem]

I don't KNOW if Niadna is a troll or not, BUT, I DO know that HER writing style IS annoying as HELL.

[_Niadna]

Couple of things:

Joseph Smith did not burn the printing press. He ordered it dismantled, and when the type was destroyed, he offered to pay for it because it wasn't supposed to be destroyed.The building wasn't damaged. No fire was involved and nobody was injured in the process.

Not quite. You only got the last part right that no one was injured. He ordered the press DESTROYED, and the type scattered in the street (effectively destroying it), and they burned everything else at his order, and also if anyone resisted the building was to be DESTROYED. Of course, since the Law's were not in Nauvoo, they could not "resist". This is Edward Bonney, who was there:....snip a great deal of pretty darned good information...

Not even a word of which supports that claim that Joseph Smith burned the Nauvoo Expositor Press down.

In fact, the only thing that got burned was some of the paper. The building was fine, and continued to stand unburned for quite a few more decades.

As it happens, the destruction of the PRESS was legal...and found to be so in a court of law the following fall. Gov. Ford wrote about it in his 'History of Illinois" (if you want the reference I'll get it for you...I have no clue why I don't have that one on my desk top. Shoot, I SHOULD have the thing memorized by now...Oh, well...) HE, (Gov. Ford) was disgusted by the whole mess; a sort of 'a pox on both their houses' sort of thing.

Anyway, the majority legal opinion seems to have been that the destruction of the press was legal according to the laws of the day, but the destruction of the TYPE was not, and Joseph Smith said that he would pay for the type. (James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, Story of the Latter-day Saints, 2nd edition revised and enlarged, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1992[1976]), 208)

[_Niadna]

Those who keep crying that the church caved into the IRS haven't done their homework.

Perhaps. Perhaps.

One thing is for sure though, the church caved in to worldly pressure. God no more came down and told Kimball to lift the ban anymore than he comes down and tells you something. It's all just thoughts and feeling you muck about in your own brain.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. I don't agree with it.

Imagine what the LDS church would be like today had the ban never been lifted? Imagine the lawsuits against the church from black persons and the courts that find the LDS church guilty as charged. Just imagine that. Had the ban not been lifted there wouldn't be much of an LDS church today outside of Utah. The church would have been vandalized and destroyed.

I don't have to imagine any such thing, because, er....it was lifted.

[_Niadna]

Now, Niadna may turn out to be a troll. But I see no evidence of trolling yet. She does display some behaviors that I think are common for LDS folks when they converse with critics. But that doesn’t make her a troll, unless you define troll as “Mormon”.

I don't KNOW if Niadna is a troll or not, BUT, I DO know that HER writing style IS annoying as HELL.

I find yours to be "entertainment' of the 'spectator at a Roman Circus on Christian v Lion improv comedy day" style. I'm just glad my seat is near the exit.

Ah, well, we all have our quirks and you probably wouldn't like my taste in music or hobbies, either.

[_Niadna]

...and you get to define "TBM," why, precisely?

I suppose for the same reasons you do with critic and anti.

Ah, but you have a problem with me defining those terms. ;)

But 'picking and choosing' what to believe is what TBM's DO. Or rather, are supposed to do. We ARE supposed to examine, study and pray about everything, right? Get the confirmation of the Holy Ghost for beliefs?

Have you? Can you provide an example of an LDS doctrine you got confirmation of the Holy Ghost that was wrong. You say you don't believe in a global flood which is the doctrine of the church, but was that because the Holy Ghost told you it was wrong or was it from secular learning of science and how the world works? by the way I would say you are a cafeteria Mormon and TBM. Cafeteria to me fits better with chapel Mormon then TBM.

I see. So you have definitions that suit you, and that you use to help you respond to others and judge what they have to say. According to that judgment, you have determined that I am a "cafeteria Mormon" (which, by the way, is considered to be a denigration and an insult no matter who it's aimed at) because you have your own list of what Mormon Doctrine is, and so a TBM would have to believe in that specific list.

That's fine, actually. Define away. but if you do that, you also need to acknowledge the right of others to have their own definitions of terms they use. like "critic," "anti" and "extreme anti."

Just sayin', is all.