CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

[Bond]

Nelson has been pretty bad. You think it will get worse? That would be pretty bad.

Nelson seems to just be about putting the Church out there physically through Temples. I think Oaks is going to be more interested in putting non-orthodox people out of the Church period.

I take your point about imaginary friends. How I would put it is that faith is a place where there is so much room for uncertainty that to take it so seriously as to endanger the lives of others over it is a huge mistake, in my opinion. This is one reason why I am pro-choice. There is so much disagreement over the details of when to consider a foetus a person that it is ridiculous to insist that one's faith-based conclusion on the matter should be backed up by laws that govern our whole society. That's not how things should work in the sort of secular republic that is able to protect the religious or non-religious views of all.

Faith is a place where anyone can believe anything without evidence. They can knock themselves out. The problem is when they try to force their reality on everyone else which happens way too quickly.

The easiest pro-choice argument to make is consent. The government should not violate someone's bodily autonomy to provide physical resources to someone they don't want to. It's no different the government forcing someone to give up a kidney to a family member.

[msnobody]

Great post there, PG. There is a lot to unpack in it. I, too, don't think the LDS Church is so vulnerable. They are, after all, a financial powerhouse. But I do think individual members are vulnerable, and they pay a price for the antagonism and hostility aimed at the LDS Church. I think it is fine to criticize beliefs, and there are probably temperate and constructive ways of doing that. I don't see enough temperate and constructive criticisms of LDS beliefs, especially in anti-Mormonism.

How do you think missionary work factors into it? I've had conversations with non-Mormons that point to that as the irritation they feel about Mormonism. Too many sales attempts tend to put people off and missionary work has been there from the beginning. Wasn't Pratt murdered in Arkansas because he was trying to convert a plural wife and the husband didn't like it? Perhaps this is why CoC isn't "persecuted" as much? They keep to themselves it seems. Perhaps don't push it on people and the supposed "persecution" will subside? I believe this is in part and perhaps a big part as to why Dr. Wesley Walters was so motivated to "attack" Mormon beliefs - he didn't like "false" doctrine being preached by so many missionaries, expecially to his flock.

Having LDS missionaries teach/preach a false doctrine to your flock is a problem. At the same time, Christian non-LDS teachers/preachers are to preach the entire word of God to their flock to equip them to discern and be ready to give a reason for the hope that is within them, which the Word of God should then pierce their hearts so as to govern their actions and approach toward others with contrasting beliefs. OTOH, many flock members are lackadaisical with their approach to studying Scripture, their own sanctification, their own relationship with their creator. There is a cost involved and that cost is surrender of one’s self. I think as evangelicals or whatever term one may use, that we tend to forget who the really enemy is.

[msnobody]

I’ll bring the cheese. Kish is sharing his personal thoughts, which I think we should view as a privilege, as he has not always shared this with us. As a nevermo, I anticipate that somewhere in all of this, I may encounter something that requires of me introspection. Who knows, maybe it will serve as iron sharpening iron as a lot of us have shared our lives with one another online for a couple of decades now.

Thanks, msnobody. Please help me hit the right tone, if you would.

I think this is the tone you’ve intended from the start.

[Markk]

Is this another rant???? You should change the beverage in the title of your podcast to "whine with Kish"....it is far more appropriate.

I’ll bring the cheese. Kish is sharing his personal thoughts, which I think we should view as a privilege, as he has not always shared this with us. As a nevermo, I anticipate that somewhere in all of this, I may encounter something that requires of me introspection. Who knows, maybe it will serve as iron sharpening iron as a lot of us have shared our lives with one another online for a couple of decades now.

His last two podcasts were basically a protest to conversations here, where he stuck his foot in his mouth, between he and I. He could have answered questions, engaged, and worked it out here, instead of just taking his ball and retorting where he owned the narrative and mic. in my opinion it is weak, but Oh well. I have asked him several questions here that are fair and in context with the conversations I have had with him here. He even promised to answer them but hasn't, and I assume won't. But again, Oh well.

I think famunder cheese would be the appropriate cheese with his whine.

[Dr. Shades]

Then why do you want those beliefs to thrive?

I take it for granted that the importance of believing certain propositions is so baked into the culture that it would be futile to fight it.

I’m sure we can both agree that verbal abuse of small children is so baked into the culture that it would be futile to fight it. Does that mean you want it, too, to perpetuate, prosper, and thrive?

If not, what’s the difference?

[Kishkumen]

Why so sensitive, Markk? I don’t really think of these things as direct responses to you so much as thoughts generated by our discussion. I am puzzled as to why you are so pushy about all of this. I haven’t seen or interacted with you in ages, and suddenly you are here pestering me about my YouTube channel. I felt like I was pretty measured and lighthearted in the video references to our disagreement. I didn’t seek to hurt your feelings or insult you. At best, I would say I lightly teased you by calling you a smart aleck. I have partially answered you, and I may answer you further, but you have not ceased being rude, entitled, and strident the entire time. Not exactly endearing or persuasive.

[Kishkumen]

I’m sure we can both agree that verbal abuse of small children is so baked into the culture that it would be futile to fight it. Does that mean you want it, too, to perpetuate, prosper, and thrive?

If not, what’s the difference?

Shades, I have made it clear numerous times that I do not equate Mormonism and the LDS Church, especially after Nelson delegitimized the term Mormon in reference to the LDS Church. You want me to answer for the evils of the LDS Church and suggest I am arguing to perpetuate them. Just stop it. I will not continue to humor you in carrying on this charade. You are not arguing with me; you are trying to use me for your own ends.

[Markk]

Why so sensitive, Markk? I don’t really think of these things as direct responses to you so much as thoughts generated by our discussion. I am puzzled as to why you are so pushy about all of this. I haven’t seen or interacted with you in ages, and suddenly you are here pestering me about my YouTube channel. I felt like I was pretty measured and lighthearted in the video references to our disagreement. I didn’t seek to hurt your feelings or insult you. At best, I would say I lightly teased you by calling you a smart aleck. I have partially answered you, and I may answer you further, but you have not ceased being rude, entitled, and strident the entire time. Not exactly endearing or persuasive.

LOL, you are the sensitive one and rather up and down. You made some very direct assertions about me and when I question you about them, you call me names, and then do a podcast about our conversation, without ever address my questions and point of view.

Kish just answer my questions, then you can ask me questions and we can discuss the issues that you disagreed with is all I ask, I could care less if we agree or disagree, but if you are going to assert I am wrong, at least opine your position.

You weren't lightly teasing me...LOL are you kidding me, you had a melt down and did a podcast to vent, where I could not defend my position, which is weak.

A few of my questions so far you ducked...

Do you believe Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God? Why is that so hard to answer?

And, after you negative words toward the Tanners, and my using their ministry to get the truth of a church that lied to me for 33 years...."what is the difference between the Tanners, and RFM and Vogel"....and please see the context as to why I asked you that question.

Answer these and I'll cut and paste more. You stated ....

Mark wrote...
If you do not believe that Joseph used the new and everlasting covenant for sexual satisfaction, what did he use it for?

And why didn't he canonize it?, is a question I ask myself if he truly believed it was from God, why did he keep it secret and only shared it with his inner trusts?

Do you believe that Joseph actually believed he could offer salvation (deification) to these women if they married him, and I guess that he was doing them an eternal favor so to speak, if they agreed to marry him?

These are fair questions.

Kish wrote...
They are. And I will get to them. But, I have to finish helping my son with his college apps, go to a play, and prepare to be on BYP. I promise I will get back to these, and I promise not to be rude toward you for the balance of this discussion.

[Rivendale]

So far Kish you apparently have limited information about the current view of Mormonism. You are living in Chick track , god makers world view. We all know of all this. Pick up the speed. Richard Packham penetrated Mormonism years ago using much more varied descriptive terms. And yes you are coffee with Kish but man whatever audience you are targeting I am at a loss. Rfm would kick you to the curb. Typing as I listen. Big tent religion will never work. Get rid of your dumb Satanic crap.

Bizarre. Well, it is not primarily aimed at a specialist Mormon Studies audience. I am talking chiefly about anti-Mormon ministries. Evidently you wanted me to talk about Ex-Mo anti-Mormonism. Different things. Oh well.

Lol. Okay

[I Have Questions]

Shades, I have made it clear numerous times that I do not equate Mormonism and the LDS Church, especially after Nelson delegitimized the term Mormon in reference to the LDS Church.

I think this attempted delineation is problematic.

One historian, Sydney E. Ahlstrom, wrote in 1982 that, depending on the context, the term Mormonism could refer to "a sect, a mystery cult, a new religion, a church, a people, a nation, or an American subculture; indeed, at different times and places it is all of these."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism
Many people, quite legitimately, refer to the LDS Church as Mormonism. I, and perhaps others, are finding it difficult to ascertain what you mean when you say “Mormonism”. For instance, from what you’ve said a person could think you include the polygamous sect that the LDS Church has tried to distance itself from, by making a distinction between Mormonism and Latter-day Saintism (a clumsy way to differentiate but you get my intention). In your determination of Mormonism, as I understand it, that polygamous sect is within what you mean by Mormonism. Which obviously is going to draw the question “So you want polygamy to thrive?”. But if the answer is no, then you are rejecting that part of Mormonism, and polygamy is an integral part of Mormon heritage. This cherry picking is making it difficult to understand you.

At his point your statement that you want Mormonism to thrive is becoming meaningless to people simply because Mormonism includes so many things that are harmful and which shouldn’t thrive. But thrive they will because your idea of Mormonism doesn’t really exist in the real world. There’s no Mormon community, there’s no Mormon people, there’s no Mormonism being improved from within where good ideas are promoted and bars ones rooted out. Instead there are communities of Latter-day Saints, within a structure (the Church). Or Polygamists within their cult. Etc.

I don’t think your romanticised notion of a Mormon people exists. Which is why I don’t think you can adequately articulate the definitions and boundaries for what you are trying to say is “Mormonism”.