the Ogre

Good luck with that. Many states still have curriculum requirements for home-schoolers.

An interesting point of fact about the SoP, their level of testimony would generally require that they adhere to all the requirements of the Forth Article of Faith. I bet most of those dudes have been baptized.

I do not think the government should be indoctrinating its citizens, but they do anyway. In South Korea it is called the Ministry of Education. In the US we call it the state curriculum.

And you accused me of double talk? Yeah right. I know you think we've been lied to. When something does not reflect your interpretation of the truth that makes everything else false. If someone continues to rattle off falsehoods, then they must be liars. If I am disagreeing with your version of the truth, am I calling you a liar? Nope. I'm just disagreeing with you without resorting to polemic language. Accusing someone of lying is very strong and quite insulting. I am sure you did not mean it. You probably do not understand how important Joseph Smith is to us (think: Moses is important to the Jews, calling him a liar might incite some of them to violence, but mormons are Chr-stians, so we aren't going for the rope). Speak to us as if you were interested in finding common ground and conversation.

I paint my definition with broad stripes. If someone is the opposite of an apologist, or someone who is a skeptic, who is a scholar and does not care about the eternal progression of individuals, but who writes critical analysis; then I do not consider them an anti-mormon. I do not like the skeptics and apologists. I think both are nearly as dangerous as anti-mormons, but not quite.Anti-mormons are those who oppose the Mormon church and want every mormon to convert to another faith. I do not mean every Korean-Evangelical I met on Seoul's subway were antis, they thought telling me I was going to hell was quite sincere and typical of their approach to everyone (a shot-gun approach as it were). The professional ministries active on the web who spend all their money on trying to "save" Latter-day Saints are however. Those who come on this site who claim to know more about mormonism than do we and then try to prove it are anti-mormons. The ex-mos who preach from anger and rage and do nothing but condemn church leadership and often the general membership for whatever reason are anti-mormons. I do want to warn that there are allies or just plain friends who are not anti-mormons. They believe differently, but do mind our beliefs and often enjoy the conversation and the friendship. To review: Shot-gun approach witness-missionaries: not typically. Scholarly-skeptics: no, they're just plain over-educated idiots. Ax-to-grind ex-mos: yes. Professional mormon-ministries that publish extensively about the falsehood of the church: yes. Trolls on an LDS forum: yes. Freinds who truly are just interested in the conversation: no. Your neighbor with a deluded minister: no, but then it depends on how shrill they get. A nice question is: am I an anti-evangelical? Not typically, it just depends on how I get treated. I however do not attack their faith, only their motives, sincerity, and methodology. I have not called someone an anti to their face in years because I don't want to be called an anti-Chr-stian. Late Edit: Economics might also be a part of it. A type of natural business competition. For example the Coke v. Pepsi thing. It just seems that when congregations compete for congregants it just gets vicious regardless of the specific denomination being jumped.

You should not be concerned about that post. Focus instead on what you have to do and not what anyone else has to say.Thank her for her concern and then move on.

I would be very careful. You are underestimating them. What they are is very deceptive. Their skill at twisting the facts is incredible. They are very good at pouncing on someone who is filled with doubts or has committed some type of sin and are feeling guilty. They prey on doubts and on controversy real or created. They depend most on their audience being ignorant. A latter-day Saint who has educated themselves can avoid most of these traps, but a well read saint is not who they are the most interested in.

Dude, you sound like you are angry at your father. I'm sorry about your failed opportunity. That does sound pretty tragic. I can understand why you are so unhappy.I'll be honest. I'm not nice at all. I do not put much value on niceness. It is too superficial and mercurial. Brigham Young was quite unhappy with Emma. Emma was quite unhappy with Brigham. He didn't put a lot of stock in niciness either. I am quite aware about the Samuel Smith allegations. The entire situation is controversial. Because it is controversial, I do not take a stand on it because there is no way to know. I however do not think you should be concerned about how nice they were. I also do not think you should judge the past on the standards of today. It pointless and always leads to misunderstanding. Do not be concerned with how nice a person is now. Most likely, they are faking it. You mentioned problems with you EQ Pres after taking the Cset. Forget it. He might deserve empathy. He might not. It isn't your concern right now. More about being a minister: one of our moderators is a protestant minister. He makes very little money. I bet seminary teachers make more. However that doesn't matter. You are not one now. Was this the only option you could have had, or are there other things you could do? As the past does not equal the future, I'd think you would be interested in making sure your future could be as distant from you past. Was your father the only reason you joined, or did you have your own reasons? If I remember right you said you have a testimony. A testimony is worth more than any gold. Do not feed it with pain and disappointment. Search for what will supply it with joy. Take the test again and then go on to teach kids math. Eventually I'm going to be teaching college freshman English. I can't be concerned with the putzes I meet along the way. Good news then. Good luck. Don't worry about it. A protestant friend told me today worry was a sin. I don't know about that, but just in case . . .

You might be a mormon if you bury your testimony. You might be a mormon if you giggle at a viewing and look forward to the refreshments.

Then you are wrong. Review the Forth Article of Faith.

I can only speak of the antis I know personally. They are all former Latter-day Saints. Their reasons are several, legion even, but to me their biggest reason is rejection. We rejected them, they rejected us. Rejection followed by rationalization. "Mormons reject me because I'm a free thinker. They reject me because I'm different, because I stand out, because they only want more mo-clones. I reject them because who can believe in G-d anyway. I reject them because they cannot tell me how to live. I reject them because they are so judgmental. I reject them because I am a free-thinker. I reject them because whatever and whatever and whatever and whatever . . . " Bah! Who cares? They have their reasons. I know a few who have said very hateful things. Some who have been treated very poorly by members of the church. I know one who is mad at something our dad said when he was fifteen. All I know for sure is that I have experienced a lot of pain because of them. I have not only experienced their pain, but I know their desolation, I know their deception, I know their anger, and I know they are so filled with rage they will not stop until there is a wall built around the church with stenciled warnings that say: Warning! There is zealotry inside. I have charity for them and the ones in my life I treat with courtesy, friendship, and love, but they know me: I will not tolerate their willful destructiveness and I will always give them a face to spit into so long as I am the one they are fighting with and not with others who do not know of or understand their hurt.

Probably up to Wymount Terrace Apartments in Provo.

You guys totally ROCK !!!!!!!

Tarnished, thank you for the fine point. The differences between "can" and "should" are quite subtle, but important. I decided to go with "can" to reflect what is happening now and to see if people in different parts of the country are able to actually teach whatever they want. I have heard that in some states, home-schoolers are still required to teach some of the topics they wanted to avoid in the first place. In some countries it is illegal for parents to teach or discuss subjects that run counter to government edict. I believe in the US it is illegal to instruct one's children how to commit crime.I wanted to reserve the "should" aspect for the forum, so people would be more free than a simple yes/no answer could possibly give. Thank you for noting the distinction.

Yes absolutely. The media is not helping the situation at all, but that still does not answer the idea of extreme teachings by parents.I think White-extremism has always been very radical. I remember when my father told us about how every worthy male qualifies as a preisthood holder during a Family Home Evening my mom's parents attended (both of their parents were Jews who converted to the church prior to the turn of the century). This was right after the declaration and dad felt he needed to make sure we understood the miracle of this modern revelation. My grandmother was very vocal in her racism, but both my father and my grandfather said we had to sustain the presidency. My dad said it was such a great day that we were going to have a special meal to celebrate. We were living on post at Ft. Drum and my dad got us what I thought was the best pizza I had ever had. Right now, racism is extremely radical, but does the state have the right to step in and mitigate in a parents instruction no matter how much we disagree?

That's right. It is an absolutely ridiculous option. Who could possibly answer that way, but I have had to deal with people throughout my life who do feel that way. Denial is not healthy, so I included it.As ridiculous as the option is. There is racism still in the church even though most members are doing everything to excorcize this demon. There is still a long distance to run in this marathon. I hope we make it.

LOL, that's great. Thank you.

First: Take the poll above I came across this story today: White-supremacist parents battle state - The Globe and Mail I do not agree with the ability of the state to take children away from parents for reasons that run against the grain social workers. A great many social workers dislike religion. What if they decided parents could not teach their children about religion? Is the state wrong in a case as extreme as this?

Still: I have always liked this list. I might have one for you. The gift of piety. I think it is a spiritual gift. I don't have it and the many who think they do confuse it with the curse of self-righteousness.

Oh brother . . .

Don't worry about the family part. That might change. Also, find a FHE family. Someone you can go to Family Home Evening with. That might be people like yourself (if you are single, find a singles group) or it might be a family with ten kids. When you meet the missionaries, ask them if they can help you find one. Unknown to most people, being a new member is the best part. Eventually you will be so new, that after forty years you will still laugh and smile at something you've never noticed before in the scriptures (I did this morning, it was just great). Welcome to LDS.net. I'm glad you are here. Aaron the Ogre

Questions are the best. Have you tried the question game thread yet?Don't post to just one thread, it makes you look like an internet troll. We already have two on this forum.

It's not truth that's cliche, just how you are representing your version of it (so far everything you've said sounds like junior-college atheism . . . I want something new).

No doubt. I'm very freckled. Where would I be if salvation depended on my skin color.

Nothing wrong with that. Your response (and everything you've said up the "curiosity" bit) has been pretty cliche.