Derogatory terms part deux

[Pahoran]

Under the rubric of derogatory terms: what is the value of a term like "cult," which serves no other purpose than to demonise its target?

On another forum, an LDS participant from this board claimed that he had been told that the term "LDS Christian" was regarded as "derogatory" or in some way offensive, and should therefore not be used, because the board administrators hold that Mormonism is not Christian.

Is that correct?

Granted that this is the position of the board, why must Latter-day Saint followers of Jesus of Nazareth tacitly ***ent to what they rightly view as a canard in order to participate here?

Regards,
Pahoran

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Pahoran

Under the rubric of derogatory terms: what is the value of a term like "cult," which serves no other purpose than to demonise its target?

On another forum, an LDS participant from this board claimed that he had been told that the term "LDS Christian" was regarded as "derogatory" or in some way offensive, and should therefore not be used, because the board administrators hold that Mormonism is not Christian.

You have a nasty habit of using derogatory names--so it is quite interesting that of all people you are the one to raise this issue.

[Vlad III]

Originally Posted by Pahoran

Under the rubric of derogatory terms: what is the value of a term like "cult," which serves no other purpose than to demonise its target?

On another forum, an LDS participant from this board claimed that he had been told that the term "LDS Christian" was regarded as "derogatory" or in some way offensive, and should therefore not be used, because the board administrators hold that Mormonism is not Christian.

Is that correct?

Granted that this is the position of the board, why must Latter-day Saint followers of Jesus of Nazareth tacitly ***ent to what they rightly view as a canard in order to participate here?

Regards,
Pahoran

I wonder if you are referring to this:

Originally Posted by akaSeerone

mod edit.

Andy

Some LDS use the term "LDS Christian" to differentiate themselves from non-LDS Christians; the obvious implication that LDS fall under the unbrella of Christianity. Most people who are critics of the LDS church will deny that LDS are Christians and would consider the term LDS-Christian to be a non-sequitur or an oxymoron.

But TMK there is no "rule" that states that such a term is prohibited here.

[Pahoran]

Originally Posted by Vlad III

I wonder if you are referring to this:



Some LDS use the term "LDS Christian" to differentiate themselves from non-LDS Christians; the obvious implication that LDS fall under the unbrella of Christianity. Most people who are critics of the LDS church will deny that LDS are Christians and would consider the term LDS-Christian to be a non-sequitur or an oxymoron.

But TMK there is no "rule" that states that such a term is prohibited here.

Thanks Vlad. That does sound a lot like what was alleged to have been said.

But there is a difference between an argument and an enforced rule. If it's just aka being a ****hard, I can understand that. Although, of course, he is clearly wrong; there's nothing "derogatory" about a Latter-day Saint claiming to be a Christian, but that's another issue.

So can we take it that there is no such rule?

Regards,
Pahoran

[Sentinus]

Originally Posted by Pahoran

Under the rubric of derogatory terms: what is the value of a term like "cult," which serves no other purpose than to demonise its target?

On another forum, an LDS participant from this board claimed that he had been told that the term "LDS Christian" was regarded as "derogatory" or in some way offensive, and should therefore not be used, because the board administrators hold that Mormonism is not Christian.

Is that correct?

Granted that this is the position of the board, why must Latter-day Saint followers of Jesus of Nazareth tacitly ***ent to what they rightly view as a canard in order to participate here?

Regards,
Pahoran

While we are on the trek of derogatory terms lets add "anti" to the list. Additionally "Apostate" as I have affectionately been called elsewhere.

[Vlad III]

Originally Posted by Sentinus

While we are on the trek of derogatory terms lets add "anti" to the list. Additionally "Apostate" as I have affectionately been called elsewhere.

I think "anti" is already on the list.

The bottom line is that if anyone calls someone a name in a negative way it probably should not be used.

[Sentinus]

FOR ALL


I agree with Vlad, Additionally if others find something offensive it should be avoided as well. But then that becomes the slippery slop I believe Pahoran is complaining about. Indeed many LDS find the term Mormon offensive, while others do not. Christian was intended to be offensive but has since become embraced. And many "Mainstreamers" indeed find it offensive to hear LDS refer to themselves as Christian. Hence, LDS posters should remember where they are posting and be aware that they have chosen to post on a site that has a clear bias on the matter. If you don't like the way they play the game my advice is to post elsewhere.

No one stood up for me at MADB when I was labeled, an "anti" "apostate" or many other offensive terms. I pointed out that I felt it was such, but as I already knew I wasn't on homefield so I didn't complain. Additionally I am sure that if I publicly questioned any banning at MADB I would have been suspended, warned or even possibly banned myself..

At Walter Martin LDS members are labeled as being a cult, what other type of response would you expect?? The best course of action would be for LDS to simply ignore these sites and give the supposed "antis' nothing to do, instead LDS members flock to these sites to represent "the one true church" and in the process continually feed the flames that you all cry out against.. And when LDS posters get banned for poor behavior they run back to their "homeboard" and call for reinforcements, giving their own very biased version of why they were banned.

This entire thread is an example of this poor behavior, and is in itself an off topic issue that has nothing to do with Mormonism, its doctrine, and the teachings of those that claim to be "prophet, seer, and revelator". Hopefully Jill locks this thread and warns Pahoran about this type of behavior...

[OceanCoast]

Originally Posted by Vlad III

But TMK there is no "rule" that states that such a term is prohibited here.

A memo did go out about how LDS-Christian was offensive and shouldn't be used... didn't you get it?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Sentinus

No one stood up for me at MADB when I was labeled, an "anti" "apostate" or many other offensive terms. I pointed out that I felt it was such, but as I already knew I wasn't on homefield so I didn't complain. Additionally I am sure that if I publicly questioned any banning at MADB I would have been suspended, warned or even possibly banned myself..

They threw the same terms at me as well, even questioning my honestly by stating that I was not telling the truth about my LDS membership. But one of the biggest name callers from MADB was Pahoran IMO, especially if he got a little bit angry.

Here is Pahoran doing what he does best--name calling in his post directed at me.

Pahoran states,
Now I realise you don't see too many ocean fish up in them Ozarks, but that there is a red herring, Billy from the Hills. We're not quite ready to be distracted by it just yet.
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/top...golden-plates/

[Libby]

Billy, they didn't give you any reason for being banned over there?

I have an account there, but haven't used it in a long time. I think it would be too much effort to have to tippy toe around issues over there. Not worth it.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

Billy, they didn't give you any reason for being banned over there?

For the most part I was respectful--at least I thought so. And to their credit they did give me a long run with over 3400 posts. But the bottom line--I think that I finally got under their skin. Since I am banned I can't use the search feature so I don't recall my last several posts that lead up to my banning.

[Billyray]

I think that this was my post that got me banned. It was initially a suspension that they simply later changed into a ban.


http://www.mormonapologetics.org/top...-of-mormonism/ page 27
Billy, on Apr 5 2009, 01:17 PM, said:
You obviously have not read LDS Apologetics 101.

1. Change the subject, especially if you are getting pinned in the corner
2. Fall back to Testimony, who can argue against ones testimony.
3. Instead of arguing the issues, try to make it personal. If you make the other guy mad, he is more likely to say something that can be used against him.
4. Use ad hominem attacks. But be sneaky about it. "you were never a member" "you were never a missionary" "you do not understand mormonism even on the most basic level". In other words, you are either a liar OR you are too s t u p i d to grasp basic principles.

Remember these points. And like they say at Lagoon, "Have Fun"


Hermes replies
billy you forgot rule number 5: "suspend billy for two weeks." to the rest of you: stick to the topics and dont make things personal. that goes for lifeonaplate, deb, aqui and jeff ricks. please, egging billy on only encourages him~hermes

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I think that this was my post that got me banned. It was initially a suspension that they simply later changed into a ban.


http://www.mormonapologetics.org/top...-of-mormonism/
Billy, on Apr 5 2009, 01:17 PM, said:
You obviously have not read LDS Apologetics 101.

1. Change the subject, especially if you are getting pinned in the corner
2. Fall back to Testimony, who can argue against ones testimony.
3. Instead of arguing the issues, try to make it personal. If you make the other guy mad, he is more likely to say something that can be used against him.
4. Use ad hominem attacks. But be sneaky about it. "you were never a member" "you were never a missionary" "you do not understand mormonism even on the most basic level". In other words, you are either a liar OR you are too s t u p i d to grasp basic principles.

Remember these points. And like they say at Lagoon, "Have Fun"


Hermes replies
billy you forgot rule number 5: "suspend billy for two weeks." to the rest of you: stick to the topics and dont make things personal. that goes for lifeonaplate, deb, aqui and jeff ricks. please, egging billy on only encourages him~hermes

That doesn't look worthy of a ban, to me. It's actually a pretty good observation. I have seen those techniques at work fairly often.

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Sentinus

No one stood up for me at MADB when I was labeled, an "anti" "apostate" or many other offensive terms. I pointed out that I felt it was such, but as I already knew I wasn't on homefield so I didn't complain. Additionally I am sure that if I publicly questioned any banning at MADB I would have been suspended, warned or even possibly banned myself.

Originally Posted by Billyray

They threw the same terms at me as well, even questioning my honestly by stating that I was not telling the truth about my LDS membership. But one of the biggest name callers from MADB was Pahoran IMO, especially if he got a little bit angry. Here is Pahoran doing what he does best--name calling in his post directed at me. Pahoran states,

Now I realise you don't see too many ocean fish up in them Ozarks,but that there is a red herring,Billy from the Hills. We're not quite ready to be distracted by it just yet. http://www.mormonapologetics.org/top...golden-plates/

If the name applies why not use it? Also Pahoran may have been sarcastic here but calling someone for using the fallacy of red herrings is again if true only stating the facts.

[Vlad III]

Originally Posted by OceanCoast

A memo did go out about how LDS-Christian was offensive and shouldn't be used... didn't you get it?

Apparantly not. But I've been banned for a month and just got back.

[Jill]

Pahoran,

Please review the "Derogatory Terms" thread. I updated it today to address the term "LDS Christian." I do not consider it a derogatory term, I consider it inaccurate and misleading based upon biblical theology and an extensive historical record.

LDS Members are not forced to "consent" to anything. Most people joining this board know Walter Martin's theology, and members automatically consent to follow board rules, whatever they may be. This includes respecting moderator decisions regarding inaccurate and misleading terminology. If some Christians on this board started referring to themselves as LDS Christians, they would be informed of the problem and told to respect the board rules. Posting on any board is a privilege, not a right.

I will leave this thread up briefly, and then it will be deleted.

[Vlad III]

Originally Posted by Jill

Pahoran,

Please review the "Derogatory Terms" thread. I updated it today to address the term "LDS Christian." I do not consider it a derogatory term, I consider it inaccurate and misleading based upon biblical theology and an extensive historical record.

LDS Members are not forced to "consent" to anything. Most people joining this board know Walter Martin's theology, and members automatically consent to follow board rules, whatever they may be. This includes respecting moderator decisions regarding inaccurate and misleading terminology. If some Christians on this board started referring to themselves as LDS Christians, they would be informed of the problem and told to respect the board rules. Posting on any board is a privilege, not a right.

I will leave this thread up until tonight, and then it will be deleted.

Wow! So it seems the updates on what can and cannot be said is getting longer. I stand corrected.

[Pahoran]

Originally Posted by Jill

Pahoran,

Please review the "Derogatory Terms" thread. I updated it today to address the term "LDS Christian." I do not consider it a derogatory term, I consider it inaccurate and misleading based upon biblical theology and an extensive historical record.

So, IOW, this board is committed to a long-discredited canard (see here) which no-one is permitted to challenge.

Got it.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Sentinus]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

If the name applies why not use it? Also Pahoran may have been sarcastic here but calling someone for using the fallacy of red herrings is again if true only stating the facts.

Ok I get it. Why not define the two terms you so affectionately applied to me out the side of your mouth. In a thread devoted to understanding derogatory terms and even after I told you I found the terms offensive you choose to label myself and another as such anyway. POOR FORM...

In Christ,
Sentinus

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Sentinus

Ok I get it. Why not define the two terms you so affectionately applied to me out the side of your mouth. In a thread devoted to understanding derogatory terms and even after I told you I found the terms offensive you choose to label myself and another as such anyway. POOR FORM...

In Christ,
Sentinus

You know that it is against the rules here to use that particular term as it is considered a pejorative term. Are you trying to trick me into getting penalized or banned? "POOR FORM..." I also never called you by those terms. My point was that if someone falls under that category that calling them by that term is not offensive only stating the truth.

[Sentinus]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

You know that it is against the rules here to use that particular term as it is considered a pejorative term. Are you trying to trick me into getting penalized or banned? "POOR FORM..." I also never called you by those terms. My point was that if someone falls under that category that calling them by that term is not offensive only stating the truth.

I am sure you can provide a definition, you are just deflecting again..

Originally Posted by Messeja

I also never called you by those terms.

You insinuated as much...

So I ask again what is your definition of an "Anti" or an "Apostate"?

[Jill]

Vlad, please review the long list of "cannots,"--made necessary by people with impulse control issues.

Originally Posted by Vlad III

Wow! So it seems the updates on what can and cannot be said is getting longer. I stand corrected.

[Vlad III]

Originally Posted by Jill

Vlad, please review the long list of "cannots,"--made necessary by people with impulse control issues.

Well if you guys weren't so impulsive to flip-out whenever a LDS calls himself a Christian you wouldn't need that rule!

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Vlad III

Well if you guys weren't so impulsive to flip-out whenever a LDS calls himself a Christian you wouldn't need that rule!

I know that Joseph is a false prophet, I know that Monson is leading you down to the path to destruction, I know that you worship a false god and a false gospel. With that said would you be OK it I called myself Mormon?

[Vlad III]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I know that Joseph is a false prophet, I know that Monson is leading you down to the path to destruction, I know that you worship a false god and a false gospel. With that said would you be OK it I called myself Mormon?

Sure.

You can call yourself what you want. If you want to call yourself a Mormon while denying what Mormonism teaches, so be it.

If I want to call myself a Christian, and affirm my belief in Jesus Christ as my savior, you ought to not have a problem with that.

Yes I know the whole argument that you will now make - that it's the wrong Jesus and yada yada....whatever.

I won't deny your right call yourself what you want even though you guys have a problem with others doing that.