MRM.tv

Bill makes issue with the term Anti-Mormon. The word 'Mormon' is a descriptive noun and an adjective, which as a descriptor refers to Mormon beliefs. The prefix Anti- means to be against or oppose. So the term Anti-Mormon means to be against or oppose Mormon beliefs, which is what Bill does. He may say that he is not against Mormons and that the term is a pejorative, but that isn't true. There are Mormons and non-Mormons, Pro-Mormons and Anti-Mormons. Those who believe in the LDS Faith are referred to as Mormons, those who don't are referred to as non-Mormons. Those who promote the LDS Faith are "Pro-Mormons" those who oppose the LDS Faith are Anti-Mormons. Not all Mormons are Pro-Mormons, and not all Non-Mormons are Anti-Mormons. Pro-Mormons are Missionaries and those engaged in actively promoting the LDS faith. Most LDS are passive and don't promote their faith. Likewise most non-Mormons are passive and are not opposing the LDS faith either. Bill falls into that category of Non-Mormons who are actively opposing the LDS Faith.. Hence the term "Anti-Mormon" is not a pejorative but an accurate descriptive term.

"So the term Anti-Mormon means to be against or oppose Mormon beliefs"

Are you going to honestly tell me that that is all it means when the general Mormon culture, etc., uses it?

To quote a Mormon, J. Nelson-Seawright:

"The term 'anti-Mormon' has two meanings. First, it means anyone who is opposed to the LDS church. In this sense, there are plenty of anti-Mormons. But the second meaning, which is a semantic parallel to the term 'anti-Semite,' describes people who engage in acts of vitriolic hatred, or even proto-genocide, toward the church.

"As far as I can tell, there are really quite few (although not zero) anti-Mormons in the second sense. So the first definition would probably make the term more useful. Unfortunately, the emotional weight of the second meaning is so much greater than that of the first that it bleeds over. So I think it's really unacceptable to use the term 'anti-Mormon' when you're not describing someone engaged in actual acts of persecution -- because your audience will emotionally experience the statement as involving persecution...

"Bias or even an intention of convincing people not to be Mormon isn't the same as actual persecution. It's not anti-Semitic in the hate-speech sense to claim that the Law of Moses was fulfilled with the coming of Christ. And it's not anti-Mormon in the persecution sense to claim that Joseph Smith was a false prophet. These kinds of ideas, as well as the intention of convincing people not to be Mormon, fall squarely under the first category of anti-Mormon but not the second. We need a different word for these kinds of people, a word that isn't inappropriately tainted with genocidal implications."

More on the usage of the term here:

http://www.mormonwiki.org/Anti...

For all interested.. despite BIlls criticisms of the use of the term "Gold" in reference to the BOM Plates and making light of the fact that Apologists seriously consider the Book of Mormon plates to be made of something like Tumbaga.. Tumbaga can be found at your local Shopping mall, in the "Gold" dept.. I presume the Bill has a wedding ring made of tumbaga, and his wife and daughters possess some tumbaga and wear it regularly. If you randomly ask a thousand people what their wedding Ring is made of they'll say "Gold" when it's really tumbaga. Tumbaga is a alloy of Gold and Copper used by ancients. Today we don't call it tumbaga, we call it 18K Gold, or 22K Gold which is not Gold, but an alloy of Copper and Gold.

oceancoast, the problem isn't merely that it is Tumbaga rather than gold, it is also that such an alloy and the production of the plates would have to fit a lot of right conditions to even get down to 60lbs, let alone 40lbs (!). As Bill showed, the Church's reproduction in the downtown history library is a shameful example of cheating.

Tumbaga is not a problem at all but Bill presents this as a problem, in fact devotes nearly half of his presentation criticizing the usage of the term "Gold" by various individuals. He even jokes about why the angel didn't use the term tumbaga.. Yet, 99% of the world would probably refer to tumbaga as "Gold". I don't see where there was a requirement to have the plates weighing only 40lbs.. In fact 60lbs is not a requirement either. Bill makes a big deal about Joseph Smith carrying these plates according to account written by his Mom.. Lucy Smith wasn't a witness to the account so the account is hearsay. So most of Bills presentation was based on making criticisms based upon presumptions regarding of the the use of term "Gold" and hearsay accounts on how Joseph Smith handled the plates in some circumstances. Needless to say, it was less than an honest appraisal of Joseph Smith and the Gold plates.

No one was a witness to Smith running with the plates miles through the woods away from attackers. People believed what Smith told them, including his mother.

The "witnesses" who held the plates (while covered) estimated it at 40-60, so apologists feel the need to postulate a combination of variables that would bring such an alloyed set of plates down to that weight, while fulfilling other conditions like double-sided writing and preservation of the characters, etc. But more importantly they feel the need to get the weight down to make the account of Smith's running with them plausible. But in doing so they introduce all kinds of improbable combinations of conditions.

If your Church is really so confident that it could have been done using ancient metallurgy, then why hasn't it been able to reproduce it using modern metallurgy? That is, without cheating, as they did in the museum exhibit?