LDS/Mormon question re: Revisionist histor

[graceandglory]

My recently baptized Mormon friend is using the term “revisionist history” when confronted by Christian apologetics.

Can someone shed some light on this for me?

 

[dianaiad]

My recently baptized Mormon friend is using the term “revisionist history” when confronted by Christian apologetics.

Can someone shed some light on this for me?

Can you tell us what your friend used this term in reference to? I will tell you that fundamentalist evangelical counter-cult Christians have a habit of revising history in certain areas, but I would need to know exactly what is being discussed before I can tell you what the deal is.

 

[graceandglory]

Can you tell us what your friend used this term in reference to? I will tell you that fundamentalist evangelical counter-cult Christians have a habit of revising history in certain areas, but I would need to know exactly what is being discussed before I can tell you what the deal is.

Whatever it is, I’m sure it’s what you are referring to. May you please go on…What do you mean that fundamentalist counter-cult evangelicals revise history? That is what she is talking about. I don’t know exactly, so could you give me an example? Why do Mormons call it revisionist history, when it’s true, factual, and can be verified?

 

[dianaiad]

Whatever it is, I’m sure it’s what you are referring to. May you please go on…What do you mean that fundamentalist counter-cult evangelicals revise history? That is what she is talking about. I don’t know exactly, so could you give me an example? Why do Mormons call it revisionist history, when it’s true, factual, and can be verified?

That’s not the way this works.

I thought from the OP that you were trolling…but I was willing to play along. Now you have confirmed the nature of your fishing expedition (that last sentence is pretty glaring, y’know.) but I’m still willing to play along, to a point.

But you are the one who is talking about revisionist history. You obviously have an incident or two in mind, and I—am not psychic. You will actually have to tell me.

 

[Xavierlives]

That’s not the way this works.

I thought from the OP that you were trolling…but I was willing to play along. Now you have confirmed the nature of your fishing expedition (that last sentence is pretty glaring, y’know.) but I’m still willing to play along, to a point.

But you are the one who is talking about revisionist history. You obviously have an incident or two in mind, and I—am not psychic. You will actually have to tell me.

So when a person has a question (or posts a topic here) about LDS you determine whether they are “trolling” and then you decide whether you will answer the question?

That’s why no one will answer my question: Do the LDS believe Jesus and Lucifer were brothers?

 

[dianaiad]

So when a person has a question (or posts a topic here) about LDS you determine whether they are “trolling” and then you decide whether you will answer the question?

That’s why no one will answer my question: Do the LDS believe Jesus and Lucifer were brothers?

Xavier,I know for a fact that this question has been answered several times, in threads to which you subscribe, and in direct answer to you. I have made rather extensive and long winded explanations about it.

Your question, therefore, is disengenuous in the extreme.

However, the answer to your question is…yes, on one level, we certainly do. In fact (as I have written before) the first time I was ‘accused’ of believing this in tones of utter horror (rather the way you have done here…) my first reaction was, yeah…doesn’t everybody? It seems pretty obvious.

We believe that they are brothers in exactly the same way we believe that all of us are brothers; we are, collectively, the children of God. Satan and Jesus do not have an exclusive relationship that you and I do not share, or that you and Satan do not share, or that Jesus and I do not.

On another level, no. Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God–and in that sense, unless Mary did have other children, He HAS no siblings–certainly not Lucifer.
On a third level, again, no…because Jesus, like the rest of us who have lived on earth, have come to earth, gained a physical body, and will eventually be resurrected. He is thus physically related to all of us through Mary as well as spiritually…but not to Lucifer.
Satan never will be. He rebelled and lost his chance at any sort of salvation. He lost any chance of having a family…of claiming us as a family–and certainly of claiming Jesus as a brother.

So yes. We believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers. Just as you are mine–nothing unique to them, and it certainly doesn’t change Jesus’ nature, or Satan’s.

What amazes me is the deceptive nature of the ‘accusation.’ It’s said for the shock value–and nobody actually wants to know the why behind it, do they? It takes all the shivery horrors out of the idea.

 

[dianaiad]

So when a person has a question (or posts a topic here) about LDS you determine whether they are “trolling” and then you decide whether you will answer the question?

Certainly. It is, after all, my decision whether I respond to a question and what I say when I do respond.

 

[graceandglory]

That’s not the way this works.

I thought from the OP that you were trolling…but I was willing to play along. Now you have confirmed the nature of your fishing expedition (that last sentence is pretty glaring, y’know.) but I’m still willing to play along, to a point.

But you are the one who is talking about revisionist history. You obviously have an incident or two in mind, and I—am not psychic. You will actually have to tell me.

Trust me, I’m not. Please don’t be so quick to judge. I don’t have time to troll. I worshipped with my friend for several years. We lost touch, I found her again on facebook, thanks be to God. Sadly, in her loneliness, she has converted to Mormonism, saying they were the only ones willing to “reach out to her.” She is using the term “revisionist history” that she has learned from her Mormon friends in order to defend her new beliefs. Since you are yourself LDS, I’m sure you know what other Christians say of your faith. I don’t. I am not a specialist on Mormonism.

 

[dianaiad]

Trust me, I’m not. Please don’t be so quick to judge. I don’t have time to troll. I worshipped with my friend for several years. We lost touch, I found her again on facebook, thanks be to God. Sadly, in her loneliness, she has converted to Mormonism, saying they were the only ones willing to “reach out to her.” She is using the term “revisionist history” that she has learned from her Mormon friends in order to defend her new beliefs. Since you are yourself LDS, I’m sure you know what other Christians say of your faith. I don’t. I am not a specialist on Mormonism.

Yes, I know what other Christians say of my faith. I’m very familiar with that. Most of the time, though, it’s revisionist doctrine they are talking about, not ‘revisionist history.’ So what I am asking you is pretty simple. What, specifically, is your friend referring to when she says 'revisionist history?" You have to know that there are literally thousands of publications out there that are everything from mildly critical to violently over-the-top anti-Mormon, just as there are thousands of anti-Catholic publications, and anti-anything else you can name. You are expecting me to defend against every silly thing anybody has ever said about Mormonism?

We could start with my very first experience with the anti-Mormon types, when I was 14 (before that, I was a sheltered Idaho/Utah Mormon who actually thought most people WERE Mormon, and those who weren’t actually LIKED us…ah, the foolishness of youth…). I was three days from having moved from Utah to California, and walking with a new friend on the high school campus. I made the error of inviting her to a church youth dance. At first she was interested–then she found out it was a MORMON youth dance. She backed away from me in horror, quite literally holding her cross out against me, telling me that Mormons were evil, and all I wanted was to get her in the ‘white slave’ trade to be a ‘wife’ to one of the men. She accused me of hiding my horns in order to trick her.

She was quite serious. She ran like an Olympic sprinter across the atheltic field, and made it her goal in life to make my high school life hell for the next four years. She was very good at it, too.

I COULD start with her and continue on for the next 36 years worth of the utter stupidity that I have encountered, but I think that it would be better (at least shorter) if you gave ME some examples. In what context was your friend saying ‘revisionist history?’ I’m sure that it didn’t come out of the clear blue sky; it had to be in reference to something!

 

[Jerusha]

I am sorry that such anti-Mormon sentiment hurt you directly. People must be informed in order to understand how Mormon culture enslaves people. Those who regard Mormons as involved in some sort of Satanic cult are the most guilty.

Those who are “hysterically indifferent” to Mormonism and its problems, as I was, are as much victims of an enslaving culture as are Mormons. Therefore I have some cultural commonalities with you, given the culture of Hancock County Illinois, where I was raised. Mormons tend to impose Mormon culture wherever they go. Sometimes it amounts to terrorism. A very sophisticated form of psychological terrorism, but terrorism, nonetheless.

Mormons tend to accuse those they oppose of what they themselves are guilty. I think the “historical revisionism” term being bandied about in this thread is hysterically funny. Mormons think that they have the right to write history, and that is the foundation of their religion. They censor the history curriculum in the schools in Mormon-dominated areas. That bias can cause many problems.

 

[zerinus]

My recently baptized Mormon friend is using the term “revisionist history” when confronted by Christian apologetics.

Can someone shed some light on this for me?

You need to provide context before we can respond. It is not a term that Mormons commonly throw around. Revisionist history has a general common meaning not associated with Mormonism. If you Google for it you will come across many hits. I for one need to know exactly the context in which your friend was using the term before I can comment. Tell us what the conversation was about, and in relation to what question or discussion your friend was using that term.

 

[dianaiad]

I am sorry that such anti-Mormon sentiment hurt you directly. People must be informed in order to understand how Mormon culture enslaves people. Those who regard Mormons as involved in some sort of Satanic cult are the most guilty.

“Thos who regard Mormons as involved in some sort of Satanic cult are the most guilty” of what, Jerusha…telling people how the Mormon culture enslaves people? How odd that I don’t feel a bit 'enslaved." In fact, I am, I believe, far more free to speak my mind and be who I wish to be than many people who do NOT belong to the 'Mormon culture."

Those who are “hysterically indifferent”

Now there’s an oxymoron. How can one be 'hysterically" indifferent to anything?

to Mormonism and its problems, as I was, are as much victims of an enslaving culture as are Mormons. Therefore I have some cultural commonalities with you, given the culture of Hancock County Illinois, where I was raised. Mormons tend to impose Mormon culture wherever they go. Sometimes it amounts to terrorism. A very sophisticated form of psychological terrorism, but terrorism, nonetheless.

May I say…baloney? I’ve been in a Mormon-rich culture (as one of the founding families of the area, no less…) but I’ve also spent most of my life very much as a minority Mormon–the kook down the street who believes strange things and whose children probably shouldn’t be invited to parties because they are likely to do wierd things. Your representation of Mormonism as some terrorist mind control cult is more than a little out of line.

Mormons tend to accuse those they oppose of what they themselves are guilty.

Really, Jerusha?

I have asked you to do this several times now, and you haven’t managed to do it yet. Will you show me the ‘cult’ section in a Deseret Book store? Will you show me the ‘how to answer Catholics," or “Inside Catholicism, what Catholics really believe” or "Maze of the Baptists,’ or any publication (book, pamphlet or anything else) that does to you guys what you blithely do to us every single day and don’t think twice about?

I think the “historical revisionism” term being bandied about in this thread is hysterically funny. Mormons think that they have the right to write history, and that is the foundation of their religion. They censor the history curriculum in the schools in Mormon-dominated areas. That bias can cause many problems.

Again, baloney. However, feel free to show me a history book in “Mormon dominated areas” that misrepresents history. You go right ahead.

 

[ralphinal]

As a non-Mormon, I have not seen them use that phrase much at all (at least I cannot think of an example of it).

I would like to see the context. I wonder if someone has decided that the recorded history of events according to Non-Mormons was changed to refect the non-Mormon view. In other words, somewhere there should be documentation of everything in the Book of Mormon but the Catholic Church destroyed it and changed the history.

I have never seen that charge made by Mormons, so I am not sure about it

 

[dianaiad]

As a non-Mormon, I have not seen them use that phrase much at all (at least I cannot think of an example of it).

I would like to see the context. I wonder if someone has decided that the recorded history of events according to Non-Mormons was changed to refect the non-Mormon view. In other words, somewhere there should be documentation of everything in the Book of Mormon but the Catholic Church destroyed it and changed the history.

I have never seen that charge made by Mormons, so I am not sure about it

Well, that is a rather silly idea. I can’t imagine such a charge being made. I HAVE seen some incidents presented in such a way as to make my blood boil a little, but not that many. That’s why I have asked for clarification. WHAT incidents is the OP referring to?

 

[ralphinal]

Well, that is a rather silly idea. I can’t imagine such a charge being made. I HAVE seen some incidents presented in such a way as to make my blood boil a little, but not that many. That’s why I have asked for clarification. WHAT incidents is the OP referring to?

THe idea is not as silly as you might think. THe Trail of Blood baptists teach the same thing: CAtholics destroyed the real historical proof

 

[graceandglory]

Well, that is a rather silly idea. I can’t imagine such a charge being made. I HAVE seen some incidents presented in such a way as to make my blood boil a little, but not that many. That’s why I have asked for clarification. WHAT incidents is the OP referring to?

My friend is on vacation, so I can’t ask her for more information at this time. I appreciate your trying to help me out, I will get more information from her as it comes up in conversation again. When I opened the thread, I thought it was going to be an easy answer, even if my question was vague. Apparently not.

 

[dianaiad]

THe idea is not as silly as you might think. THe Trail of Blood baptists teach the same thing: CAtholics destroyed the real historical proof

(thinking again…)

Nah.

It’s silly.

There is too much embarrasing history that the Catholics have NOT destroyed to believe that they would destroy something as important as that. They would attempt to explain it in the best light possible, but I cant get my mind around the idea that they would destroy it… I realize that as compliments go, this might sound a little backhanded, but hey…call it respect for the honor of the opponents. —

 

[dianaiad]

My friend is on vacation, so I can’t ask her for more information at this time. I appreciate your trying to help me out, I will get more information from her as it comes up in conversation again. When I opened the thread, I thought it was going to be an easy answer, even if my question was vague. Apparently not.

Vague questions seldom prompt precise answers.

Still, if you find out precisely what your friend is talking about, I would be happy to address the issue.

 

[ralphinal]

(thinking again…)

Nah.

It’s silly.

There is too much embarrasing history that the Catholics have NOT destroyed to believe that they would destroy something as important as that. They would attempt to explain it in the best light possible, but I cant get my mind around the idea that they would destroy it… I realize that as compliments go, this might sound a little backhanded, but hey…call it respect for the honor of the opponents. —

Actually, that is the way I approach it, too. Why would we leave in the bad stuff and leave that out?