Peterson Speaks for Himself on "Anti-Mormonism"

[Guest]

An Anti-Mormon is:

1. Someone who degrades the Church or it's people, usually unfairly so, in order to make an argument. Someone who is disrespectful when making an argument.
2. Someone who bears false witness, i.e. lies or misrepresents LDS theology, leaders words, etc. in order to be critical of it.

A Critic is:

1. Someone who doesn't degrade the Church or it's people, usually unfairly so, in order to make an argument. Respectfully makes an argument.
2. Someone who simply disagrees with LDS Theology, but doesn't need to misrepresent and lie about it in order to be critical of it.

Some LDS in order to be politically correct and so-called "respectful" classify everyone as a critic, even if they are being anti-mormon or engaging in anti-mormon behaviors and attitudes. I personally don't believe in doing that. I believe people should be called and represented by what they do. It wouldn't be fair to call someone a critic when they are being anti-mormon, when you have critics who don't act like anti-mormons also being called critics. I believe in being factual and truthful and accurate in ones describing things. Being politically correct, is not doing that. If some people don't like the term anti-mormon, then they should instead reflect on their behaviors that make them called that. A bigot is a bigot, no matter the name. Anti-mormons are bigots. Thus, it's further inappropriate to call such people "critics", because critics aren't bigots.

Of course, sometimes a critic CAN in fact engage in anti-mormon tactics and ideology's, and thus sometimes someone who is usually a critic can sometimes be called an anti-mormon or engaging in anti-mormonism in that particular thing alone.

Someone who simply disbelieves, believes differently, doesn't agree, etc. doesn't make someone anti-mormon. What makes someone anti-mormon is what I've described above. Someone can also be the nicest or most wonderful Christian in the world and also be an anti-mormon, like with the Joseph Smith/Jesus Christ DVD put out by Evangelicals sometime ago. I could see and feel the since "love" and concern, but they did nothing but bear false witness of Mormonism in that video, thus it was sinister and sickening. The world can do without that "kind" of "love". It's like the love from some wonderful perfect man who turns out to be a child molester. He may be loving doing it, but he's still an abuser and perverter of all that is virtuous and lovely.

Anti-mormons are servants of the devil, for what they do, for the devil is the father of lies, and anti-mormons do nothing but LIE about Mormonism and it's people. That's the difference.

Also, while the "technical" definition of "anti" doesn't necessarily mean someone is in a bad way against that thing, as I've described above for the term anti-mormon. Mormons however generally use the term anti-mormon to refer to those who are engaging in BAD behaviors and ideology, compared to those who simply don't agree such as with critics.

[_Darth J]

Obiwan:

What about someone who lies or misrepresents the teachings of the LDS Church in order to defend the Church?

How should that be classified?

[Guest]

Obiwan:

What about someone who lies or misrepresents the teachings of the LDS Church in order to defend the Church?

How should that be classified?

I don't really know of any such people. Sometimes the less informed average Mormon can make a mistake or not expound every fact an detail on an issue when trying to answer a question, especially challenges against the Church that they aren't used to dealing with, but that is simply an honest error.

Such an honest error is nothing that anti-mormons do and anti-mormonism has produced in which they LIE about everything they say about Mormonism. Anti-mormons are on the dark side of the force. A Mormon or otherwise who simply makes an honest mistake is still in the Light. Their intentions are not trying to destroy that which is good in the world, anti's however are engaged in that.

There is no ideological and fruit based movement within Mormonism of Mormons misrepresenting or lying about their faith. Such a belief is utterly ridiculous. There is however and ideology and movement against Mormonism, which is vile and evil. That movement thus rightly should have a name. Mormons almost never misrepresent the Church in any way, thus there is no reason to name it, other than recognizing humans sometimes make mistakes.

I know you want to try and claim "I'm" doing so, thus you believe I fit this question, but, you are the one who is wrong in your judgment. You simply don't understand, and frankly have no interest in understanding, for your mind is closed, your judgments against Mormonism and Mormons is firm. You think we all are idiots, blind, stupid, etc. Thus, I never expect you to understand anything I say anyway.

My purpose even replying to you is for those who are still "objective".
You won't ever be so until you chose to if you ever do. Sadly, most like you who embrace a negative paradigm never change. After all, look at the avatar and username you chose. You are entrenched in the dark side.

[_Darth J]

Obiwan:

What about someone who lies or misrepresents the teachings of the LDS Church in order to defend the Church?

How should that be classified?

I don't really know of any such people. Sometimes the less informed average Mormon can make a mistake or not expound every fact an detail on an issue when trying to answer a question, especially challenges against the Church that they aren't used to dealing with, but that is simply an honest error.

Such an honest error is nothing that anti-Mormons do and anti-mormonism has produced in which they LIE about everything they say about Mormonism. Anti-Mormons are on the dark side of the force. A Mormon or otherwise who simply makes an honest mistake is still in the Light. Their intentions are not trying to destroy that which is good in the world, anti's however are engaged in that.

Would you like some specific examples?

And given that Satan is the father of lies, why would it be acceptable to engage in Satanic tactics in defending the Church?

[_Darth J]

Obiwan:

You feel free to challenge me about anything in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15412&hilit=contradicting

[_Obiwan]

Would you like some specific examples?

And given that Satan is the father of lies, why would it be acceptable to engage in Satanic tactics in defending the Church?

I already told you that Mormons don't do this. Sometimes making a mistake about one thing or something is not the same as full bore lying about everything as anti-mormons do.

Know-one said it's "acceptable". But, the rare mistake is well within normal human fallibility, and perfectly reasonable and understandable. Further, having different opinions doesn't necessarily mean another is lying or misrepresenting things. I for example don't agree with Brant Gardner's view that Quetzalcoatl imagery, historical motifs, ideas, etc. has "nothing at all" to do with Christ. I think the two legends and ideas have intermixed, etc. Of course, as far as I know, we agree on every single other thing related to Mormonism. As well, Quetzalcoatl is not a doctrine, so we are even more free to disagree with each other.

One lying and the other is actually being truthful isn't the correct way to look at it, these are simply opinions about information, for which disagreement is reasonable and understandable. On the other hand when people like you present Mormonism in nearly all cases, the actual truth about Mormonism is clear, but you chose instead of misrepresent Mormonism, even when corrected. Obviously, there are are a couple of issues that are harder, such as whether the Father was once a man, or whether the Priesthood ban was a policy or doctrine. But, that's it off hand. All other issues you clearly misrepresent and lie about Mormonism on.

by the way.... I said more in my previous post that you missed.

[_Obiwan]

Obiwan:

You feel free to challenge me about anything in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15412&hilit=contradicting

I'll see if I feel like it, but just to let you know, a brief perusal, it's simply the regular common anti-mormon lying malarkey that I've seen forever.

Take your "white and delightsome" quote. You misrepresent both what Kimball said and the scriptures. Both scriptures and Kimball know very well that there was BOTH differences in skin color AND spirituality. Further, it's common sense. Native American children living in a modern environment obviously their skin would become lighter, and those same children living in Mormon households their skin/spirits would also become lighter. It was actually an ingenious thing he said, but your dark side paradigmed brain can't understand the subtle things about it.

It's the same with DNA in the Book of Mormon. Thomas Murphy who started that monster off was always a moron to me when I first read his judgments. He misrepresents the Book of Mormon and LDS leaders statements in order to make his claim.

You all are a joke.... thinking you're so smart about Mormonism, but in fact you're just not smart enough. And I know for sure as someone who's been of no religion, multiple religions, a basic Mormon, an anti-mormon and anti-religion. I know how you think, and you're ignorant.

[Guest]

Would you like some specific examples?

And given that Satan is the father of lies, why would it be acceptable to engage in Satanic tactics in defending the Church?

I already told you that Mormons don't do this. Sometimes making a mistake about one thing or something is not the same as full bore lying about everything as anti-Mormons do.

Know-one said it's "acceptable". But, the rare mistake is well within normal human fallibility, and perfectly reasonable and understandable. Further, having different opinions doesn't necessarily mean another is lying or misrepresenting things. I for example don't agree with Brant Gardner's view that Quetzalcoatl imagery, historical motifs, ideas, etc. has "nothing at all" to do with Christ. I think the two legends and ideas have intermixed, etc. Of course, as far as I know, we agree on every single other thing related to Mormonism. As well, Quetzalcoatl is not a doctrine, so we are even more free to disagree with each other.

Your example of intellectual freedom in the Church is showing that you don't believe in a particular apologetic theory?

Are you being serious?

ETA: Do you feel that "know-one" is a "gender racist"?

One lying and the other is actually being truthful isn't the correct way to look at it, these are simply opinions about information, for which disagreement is reasonable and understandable. On the other hand when people like you present Mormonism in nearly all cases, the actual truth about Mormonism is clear, but you chose instead of misrepresent Mormonism, even when corrected. Obviously, there are are a couple of issues that are harder, such as whether the Father was once a man, or whether the Priesthood ban was a policy or doctrine. But, that's it off hand. All other issues you clearly misrepresent and lie about Mormonism on.

by the way.... I said more in my previous post that you missed.

No, you edited your post after I responded.

But go ahead: show me what I have misrepresented or lied about.

[_Darth J]

My purpose even replying to you is for those who are still "objective".
You won't ever be so until you chose to if you ever do. Sadly, most like you who embrace a negative paradigm never change. After all, look at the avatar and username you chose. You are entrenched in the dark side.

My screen name was Darth J, and my avatar was Darth Sidious, when I joined MADB as a believing Latter-day Saint at the end of December 2009. So your reading something into this really means nothing.

Also, although you are dressing this whole thing up as Jedi versus Sith, I think it is time for someone to inform you that Star Wars is not real. It's pretend.

[_Darth J]

Obiwan:

You feel free to challenge me about anything in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15412&hilit=contradicting

I'll see if I feel like it, but just to let you know, a brief perusal, it's simply the regular common anti-mormon lying malarkey that I've seen forever.

Take your "white and delightsome" quote. You misrepresent both what Kimball said and the scriptures. Both scriptures and Kimball know very well that there was BOTH differences in skin color AND spirituality. Further, it's common sense. Native American children living in a modern environment obviously their skin would become lighter, and those same children living in Mormon households their skin/spirits would also become lighter. It was actually an ingenious thing he said, but your dark side paradigmed brain can't understand the subtle things about it.

It's the same with DNA in the Book of Mormon. Thomas Murphy who started that monster off was always a moron to me when I first read his judgments. He misrepresents the Book of Mormon and LDS leaders statements in order to make his claim.

You all are a joke.... thinking you're so smart about Mormonism, but in fact you're just not smart enough. And I know for sure as someone who's been of no religion, multiple religions, a basic Mormon, an anti-mormon and anti-religion. I know how you think, and you're ignorant.

I find it difficult to believe that you gave that thread a brief perusal, because I never said anything about "white and delightsome" on that thread. Nor did I make any reference at all to Spencer Kimball talking about it.

Nor did I say anything about DNA and the Book of Mormon.

Are you sure you are the best candidate to be casting aspersions about who is an ignorant joke?