The Internet is Destroying the LDS Church

[Sparko]

When I use the term "anti-Mormon" it is used in this fashion.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Anti: one that is opposed

Mormon: the ancient redactor and compiler of the Book of Mormon presented as divine revelation by Joseph Smith 2 : LATTER-DAY SAINT; especially : a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

An Anti-Mormon is one who is opposed to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This does not mean that those who are not LDS or agree with LDS doctrine are "Anti-Mormons". People have a right to believe as they choose and think differently than LDS. An Anti-Mormon is one who actively opposes the LDS faith. They preach against the LDS faith. They write books, make videos, pamphets, websites, gives presentations directly on and against the LDS faith. They take time out of their lives to oppose the LDS faith. In conversations with LDS, they would rather tell the LDS person why they are wrong instead of spending the bulk of their time telling the LDS about their respective faith and why they believe it. They lecture LDS on what they think the LDS faith teaches and insist LDS accept what they are saying or else they will claim the LDS is lying or hiding something.

It is not an issue of being paranoid, it is simply one of examining behavior or certain people or groups.

I don't have a problem with the term, just that some mormons like to toss it out as both an insult and a deflection to avoid considering the points the "anit-mormon" is making.

[Cow Poke]

How do you have a class on it? Easy. One opens say "The Changing Word of Mormonism" Chapter 1. Starts reading it paragraph by paragraph and commenting on it and responding to the claims.

How would I begin a lesson from your example. Line upon line, precept on precept.

When a Mormon uses the "line upon line" reference, you can count on there being a snow job.

First start with the issue of polygamy. That there are times when God commands it and times that God does not.

When, besides Joseph Smith's claim, does God command it?

Show that violations to commandments do contain consequences. The scriptures often use words like "perish" and "damned" for those who do not repent and follow God.

We're talking about Smith's own wife, Emma, who was otherwise obedient, and did not appreciate her husband using "God" to justify his infidelities.

Perhaps words like "perish" and "damned" are nicer than words like "destroy" to you.

That's totally beside the point --- she was SUPPOSEDLY one of the elect --- she wasn't an enemy of God.

God gives all people agency to choose to live his commandments but he does not give people the choice to avoid any punishment that will eventually come by disobedience. Emma was not threatened with being stoned, beheaded, or even physically killed or tortured.

So, "destroyed", in Emma's case means, what, exactly?

But failure to obey the commandments would risk her being "destroyed", "damned", "perished" whatever word you prefer to show an eternal consequence.

OK, here's how nutty that is --- her OWN HUSBAND comes up with an excuse to "marry" other women, she doesn't like it, so he comes up with this "revelation" that God will destroy her if she doesn't go along with this polygamy scam that is later "repealed", so to speak.

The fact that you're defending this amazing.

BUT -- you did give it an attempt!

[Cow Poke]

Perhaps consult with LDS people beforehand to make sure what they are claiming is in the ball park of what Mormons actually believe. There actually may be an actual difference between what you believe Mormons believe and what Mormons themselves actually believe.

Most of us have heard this line of "rationale" before, so we use FairMoron and LDS.org as sources. Are they "official" enough for you?

If your views of what Mormons believe and my views of what Mormons believe actually match each other, we will have very few disagreements on anything.

Yeah, right.

You believe Joseph Smith was a real prophet - I believe he was a fraud.
You believe the BoM is true - I think it's a fabrication of Smith.
And that's just the beginning.

[Bill the Cat]

I don't doubt that these anti-Mormons think they have good motives. These people however spend more time telling people why they are wrong than why they are right.

There are several buildings on post where I work that are being replaced. They are getting completely torn down and the ground re-leveled before the new building even gets built. That is what we are dealing with when we deal with Mormons. The entire building must be completely dismantled and the foundation built after demolition. There is a process. It is not simply a redecoration of the interior, it is a complete reconstruction effort.

[carbon dioxide]

Most of us have heard this line of "rationale" before, so we use FairMoron and LDS.org as sources. Are they "official" enough for you?
.

Fair and LDS.org and other places are fine. By the way, my comments are not addressed to you. They are addressed to the people I was describe earlier.

[Cow Poke]

Fair and LDS.org and other places are fine.

You don't know how many times we even used THOSE sources, and the Anti-Christians would declare "that's not official". Even when quoting your own prophets from your own Church's website.

By the way, my comments are not addressed to you. They are addressed to the people I was describe earlier.

Not a prob!

[carbon dioxide]

We're talking about Smith's own wife, Emma, who was otherwise obedient, and did not appreciate her husband using "God" to justify his infidelities.

[Cow Poke]

She loved her husband -- she tried hard to believe in him.

Source: Journal of Mormon History, Spring 2005, Volume 31, p. 70.

Emma Smith claimed that the very first time she ever became aware of a polygamy revelation being attributed to Joseph Smith was when she read about it in 1853 in Orson Pratt's booklet The Seer.[16] Many of the Latter Day Saints who joined the RLDS Church in the midwestern United States had broken with Brigham Young and/or James Strang because of opposition to polygamy. Emma's continuing public denial of the practice seemed to lend strength to their cause, and opposition to polygamy became a tenet of the RLDS Church. Over the years, many RLDS Church historians attempted to prove that the practice had originated with Brigham Young.

© Copyright Original Source

If she was OK with polygamy, why did she deny he was "married" to other women?

[carbon dioxide]

There are several buildings on post where I work that are being replaced. They are getting completely torn down and the ground re-leveled before the new building even gets built. That is what we are dealing with when we deal with Mormons. The entire building must be completely dismantled and the foundation built after demolition. There is a process. It is not simply a redecoration of the interior, it is a complete reconstruction effort.

Since you invoked a business type analogy, I will offer one as well. My family has been a long time owners of Honda cars. Both my immediate and extended family have owned a number of them. We find their cars to be great cars. Never have had any problem with them. Now suppose am shopping for a car and some salesman wants me to buy a car. I tell him I like Honda cars. He starts bashing the Honda brand about this and that about how they are not reliable and bad cars. At that point the conversation is done. I know that Honda cars are overall good cars and I am not going to listen to him bash a brand of car I have been satisfied with for many years. I know from my experience that what he is saying is wrong. Why should I trust him on anything else when he falsely accused Honda cars being bad when I know they are good. I think a good rule of a salesman is don't bash or insult the intelligence of the customer assuming that the salesman knows the subject matter better than the customer. When the salesman dismisses the views of the customer and proceeds to lecture the customer on what he things is right, the salesman loses his customer.

Mormons know their faith. So regardless of a person's motives, if they start making misrepresentations against Mormons, they will detect it fairly easily. Consider the following example that I had a number of years ago in a Yahoo Christian Chat room

"MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that they believe Jesus had at least three wives and children while he was on this earth." (Christian Chatter in Yahoo Christian Chat Room 3 on 10/10/05 at Approx. 0940 A.M.)

Now any person who knows the LDS faith that is is a load of crap. It is true that a few LDS leaders a number of years ago held to this position BUT this was never made doctrine.

"The belief that Christ was married has never been official church doctrine. It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the church. While it is true that a few church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, church doctrine." (Dale Bills LDS Church Spokesman "LDS do not endorse claims in 'Da Vinci'," Deseret News, 17 May 2006)

I personally don't know any Mormons that hold to the view by the guy in Yahoo chat In my experience there are 4 categories that exist

1. Some do not believe Jesus had a wife during his time on earth

2. Some believe he had one wife.

3. Some believe he had more than one

4. Most really have no opinion on the subject. They worry about more important things than speculating on an issue that has not been revealed by revelation.

So when somebody says ""MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that they believe..." and the fact is Mormons do not believe what is being claimed, what should I do with that man? Should I respect him and think he is credible when he does not have a clue or just dismiss him? Its sort of a dangerous game to tell another person what their religion teaches. I always assume they know their religion better than I do.

[Cow Poke]

Since you invoked a business type analogy, I will offer one as well. My family has been a long time owners of Honda cars. Both my immediate and extended family have owned a number of them. We find their cars to be great cars. Never have had any problem with them. Now suppose am shopping for a car and some salesman wants me to buy a car. I tell him I like Honda cars. He starts bashing the Honda brand about this and that about how they are not reliable and bad cars. At that point the conversation is done. I know that Honda cars are overall good cars and I am not going to listen to him bash a brand of car I have been satisfied with for many years. I know from my experience that what he is saying is wrong. Why should I trust him on anything else when he falsely accused Honda cars being bad when I know they are good. I think a good rule of a salesman is don't bash or insult the intelligence of the customer assuming that the salesman knows the subject matter better than the customer. When the salesman dismisses the views of the customer and proceeds to lecture the customer on what he things is right, the salesman loses his customer.

That's a terrible analogy. You indicate that the salesman is bashing Hondas just to make a sale. That's dishonest.

Which of us are you accusing of being dishonest?

[Cow Poke]

So when somebody says ""MORMONS WON'T TELL YOU that they believe..." and the fact is Mormons do not believe what is being claimed, what should I do with that man? Should I respect him and think he is credible when he does not have a clue or just dismiss him? Its sort of a dangerous game to tell another person what their religion teaches. I always assume they know their religion better than I do.

Do you believe it is necessary to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet in order to get into Heaven? And, just to be clear, we're talking about the BEST Heaven, not trailer park heaven.

[Cow Poke]

Mormons know their faith.

My experience with your Mormon "missionaries" over the past 40 years has proven to me that they really don't know WHAT they believe. OR, they don't feel the freedom to admit it, when asked about it. They often look at each other, shrug, and tell me they'll bring an elder back with them.

They never do.

[carbon dioxide]

That's a terrible analogy. You indicate that the salesman is bashing Hondas just to make a sale. That's dishonest.

Which of us are you accusing of being dishonest?

I did not say the salesman in the analogy was dishonest. He may very well believe what is he saying it true. But he is woefully misinformed. Once again, all my comments int his thread have not be directed at any poster in theology web. I am speaking in general terms outside of my experience of this message board.

[Cow Poke]

I did not say the salesman in the analogy was dishonest. He may very well believe what is he saying it true. But he is woefully misinformed. Once again, all my comments int his thread have not be directed at any poster in theology web. I am speaking in general terms outside of my experience of this message board.

Well, let's make it relate more to this thread -- "The internet is Destroying the LDS Church".

So, you tell me all your happy Honda stories, but I know how to use Google. So I look up Honda Reviews, and I find tons of reviews from disgruntled Honda owners. Realizing ANYBODY can post reviews, I decide to dig deeper, and look at Honda's own website. There, I find all kinds of conflicting information, including attempts to dispel the criticism using really silly arguments.

Now, I can write that all off, because YOU tell me I should trust you, or I can realize I might be better off with a Toyota.

[carbon dioxide]

My experience with your Mormon "missionaries" over the past 40 years has proven to me that they really don't know WHAT they believe. OR, they don't feel the freedom to admit it, when asked about it. They often look at each other, shrug, and tell me they'll bring an elder back with them.

They never do.

LDS missionaries are 1 or 2 years out of high school. They know basic stuff but do you really expect them to be on the same level as a life long member that is say 50 years old? When I was a missionary I thought I knew a lot. I know far more today than back then.