Derogatory terms part deux

[Rathus]

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 may be a bit late in answering this question for you and I'm sure more seasoned members have already provided you with their answers. But from my perspective, telling Mormons (who visit this forum) that they are not to refer to themselves as "LDS Christians" is, I think, to minimize some of the confusion regarding how we "non-LDS" and "Christian" view your church, it's founder and it's teachings.

Personally, I believe the term "Christian" has been too watered down and made of no effect (at least in many places around the world and especially on the internet). One reason for this is due to the fact that if you define "Christian" as simply a "follower of Christ" then the obvious question becomes, what does it mean to be a "follower of Christ"?

If simply being baptized in water and following some rules that some men (who claim to speak for Christ) have created is equivalent to "following Christ" then I think anyone could call themselves "Christian" and thus the word becomes meaningless.

The things which make Mormonism unique from Christianity would, I believe, cl***ify it as an entirely different or new religion. Just as Christianity is not Judaism (but shares many things) so to I believe Mormonism is not Christianity (even though we may use similar terminology, but mean different things). Why is it not enough for Mormons to simply be identified as "Mormons"?

[Vlad III]

Originally Posted by Rathus

Why is it not enough for Mormons to simply be identified as "Mormons"?

That's like asking why Baptists don't just call themselves baptists, or Catholics Catholic, or Lutherns Luthern, or Anglicans Anglican, etc...

If "Christian" is so watered down and meaningless, why not just call yourself by your denomination?

[Rathus]

Originally Posted by Pahoran

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

Got it.

Regards,
Pahoran

You can "challenge" it all you like. But will it get you anywhere? Or just cause you more frustration and wasted effort?

[Rathus]

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'm not sure if this is a feature of this board, but I think it would be helpful if we could identify ourselves by what faith we most closely ***ociate with. Such as "Baptist, Pentecostal, Lutheran, Mormon, Seventh-day Adventist, JW, etc.". At least that way we (newbies) can know (at least from first glance) where people are coming from.

I think it's pretty obvious that we all wear and view certain things through religious lenses. I suppose at this point knowing where certain people are coming from will only be revealed through time and exchanging of ideas and beliefs between us.

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Jill

Mesenja, I didn't say you personally could not claim to be a Christian--in a debate format you may argue whatever you wish. I said you couldn't use misleading terms like LDS Christian or LDS Christians. The issues here are terminology and context. The general characterization of Latter Day Saints as Christians is inaccurate and misleading.

Make an argument from the New Testament as to how the scriptures define the term.

[Rathus]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

A heretic is still a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.

I can accept that definition. What about apostates? Would an apostate be someone who "fell away" or left one church to join another?

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Rathus

I can accept that definition. What about apostates? Would an apostate be someone who "fell away" or left one church to join another?

Careful mormons when U answer this question......

[Rathus]

Originally Posted by Vlad III

That's like asking why Baptists don't just call themselves baptists, or Catholics Catholic, or Lutherns Luthern, or Anglicans Anglican, etc...

If "Christian" is so watered down and meaningless, why not just call yourself by your denomination?

Since I'm new here, you don't know me so I'll just respond with: I do.

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Yeah. I don't believe what Mormonism teaches,but that makes me "Mormon".

Get real,Mesenja.

Is it Calvinism? Or could it be another flavor of Protestantism? Would it be Catholicism? Or maybe it just doesn't matter as long as it isn't Mormonism?

[Rathus]

Jill, would it be considered "derogatory" to refer to Mormonism as "Counterfeit Christianity"? Or what about Pseudo-Christian? The reason I ask is because it has all the earmarks of a counterfeit.

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by Rathus

Jill,would it be considered "derogatory" to refer to Mormonism as "Counterfeit Christianity"? Or what about Pseudo-Christian? The reason I ask is because it has all the earmarks of a counterfeit.

Is the opinion here any different then Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner who wrote a book en***led "'Terminology,'The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism"? The answer is a definite no. In the introduction to their book "The Kingdom of the Cults" it states "Christians today more then ever need the trustworthy information contained in The Kingdom of the Cults. This comprehensive new edition equips readers from every walk of life to use biblical truth to counter the efforts of cults to masquerade as mainstream Christians."

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Rathus

Since I'm new here, you don't know me so I'll just respond with: I do.

----No. In your profile you put merely "Christian" when you could have done like you want the rest of us to do--elaborate on what denomination and/or theological/doctrinal "variance" you believe to be the most correct and inspired.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

A heretic is still a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.

No. Those which are clearly OPPOSED to Biblical teaching like Mormons.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

Is it Calvinism? Or could it be another flavor of Protestantism? Would it be Catholicism? Or maybe it just doesn't matter as long as it isn't Mormonism?

Or could it be the flavor of Fundmental Mormonism which actually practices the TRUE Mormonism of Joseph Smith?

[Russianwolfe]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Or could it be the flavor of Fundmental Mormonism which actually practices the TRUE Mormonism of Joseph Smith?

The true Mormonism of Joseph Smith believed in continuing revelation. The fundamental flaw of the Mormon Fundamentalist is they, like you, believe the book to be more important than continuing revelation. The living faith of the dead is now the dead faith of the living.

Marvin

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Russianwolfe

The true Mormonism of Joseph Smith believed in continuing revelation. The fundamental flaw of the Mormon Fundamentalist is they, like you, believe the book to be more important than continuing revelation. The living faith of the dead is now the dead faith of the living.

Marvin

The true Mormonism of Joseph Smth et al was THE ETERNAL PRINCIPLE OF PLURAL MARRIAGE AS NECESSARY FOR EXALTATION.

Ok, Mormon, lets see you equivocate yet again or do the Momon duck dodge and weave.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

The true Mormonism of Joseph Smth et al was THE ETERNAL PRINCIPLE OF PLURAL MARRIAGE AS NECESSARY FOR EXALTATION.

--So why are you wasting your life away attacking us who are in FAKE Mormonism? Shouldn't your priority be attacking those REAL Mormons? Aren't they more of a threat to world peace and the American Way?

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

--So why are you wasting your life away attacking us who are in FAKE Mormonism? Shouldn't your priority be attacking those REAL Mormons? Aren't they more of a threat to world peace and the American Way?

LOL Cause the FAKE Mormonism is just as misleading as the AUTHENTIC Mormonism of the FLDS who havent equivocated the religion as the Utah church has done, jeff.

An excellent question, btw.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

LOL Cause the FAKE Mormonism is just as misleading as the AUTHENTIC Mormonism of the FLDS who havent equivocated the religion as the Utah church has done, jeff.
An excellent question, btw.

----I know it was an excellent question, but I found your answer to it a bit unsatisfactory. Who is the bigger threat to the world: Us "fake" Mormons, or the real deal? By what logical prioritization process did you decide that killing off a fake branch would do the world more good than killing off the root of the bad tree?

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

----I know it was an excellent question, but I found your answer to it a bit unsatisfactory. Who is the bigger threat to the world: Us "fake" Mormons, or the real deal? By what logical prioritization process did you decide that killing off a fake branch would do the world more good than killing off the root of the bad tree?

Definitely the FAKE Mormons because of the size, influence, and wealth of the Utah church. The world hasn't been taken in by the FLDS for whatever reason, jeff.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Definitely the FAKE Mormons because of the size, influence, and wealth of the Utah church. The world hasn't been taken in by the FLDS for whatever reason, jeff.

---So you're saying that the fake branch is more dangerous than the real root of the poisonous tree? Interesting.

When certain groups of people were talking about the "necessity" of killing Joseph Smith for the good of society, one allegedly claimed that he could prophesy more accurately than the Mormon prophet could, and predicted that once Joe Smith had been killed, the head of the evil snake would be cut off and the church would collapse almost immediately, and that before long the converts would go back to the Protestant churches they used to belong to, and the Mormon church would fall into obscurity in history.

You are not the first attacker of the LDS to be wrong.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---So you're saying that the fake branch is more dangerous than the real root of the poisonous tree? Interesting.

When certain groups of people were talking about the "necessity" of killing Joseph Smith for the good of society, one allegedly claimed that he could prophesy more accurately than the Mormon prophet could, and predicted that once Joe Smith had been killed, the head of the evil snake would be cut off and the church would collapse almost immediately, and that before long the converts would go back to the Protestant churches they used to belong to, and the Mormon church would fall into obscurity in history.

You are not the first attacker of the LDS to be wrong.

Its not so much the fact that the LDS Church has apostasized from its historic teachings, jeff. Whether FLDS or LDS they are nothing but FALSE relgion regardless.

Rest ***ured: Mormonism will be destroyed at the brightness of His coming if not before.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Its not so much the fact that the LDS Church has apostasized from its historic teachings, jeff. Whether FLDS or LDS they are nothing but FALSE relgion regardless.

---But you have made attacking the FAKE branch of it your number one priority, and letting the real McCoy slide. If the real evil root is the FLDS or the RLDS or the Bickertonites, and you give them a free p***, aren't you helping SATAN since you are failing to attack his genuine tree, and are instead attacking FAKE Mormonism?

Rest ***ured: Mormonism will be destroyed at the brightness of His coming if not before.

---Not based on your failure--to date--to bring it down. At the rate things are going, YOUR church (American Episcopalianism) will bite the dust before mine does. You guys are crumbling, from the top down. Wouldn't that be ironic, if, in 25 years, you see the demise of your own church and the LDS are still hanging on?

[Father_JD]

LOL; I have already given you my reason, jeff:

Because of the Utah churchs WEALTH, SIZE, and INFLUENCE.

[alanmolstad]

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?

G

I have no issue with a Mormon being told there are in a CULT, as that is what they are in.
I dont have any problem calling them "Mormons"....or "followers of J Smith"


I would no use the term "Mormon Christians" for 2 reasons...#1-its simply wrong and #2- it's misleading.

Mormons are not Christians,and so if I tried to connect the term "Christian" to the word "Mormon" I would likely be guilty of intentionally being misleading.

Clearly that is against the rules and /or spirit of this forum.