Has your opinion of the LDS church

[kantgomo]

I'd like to see the church leadership give some good solid answers and explanations for the history of the church and also define some solid doctrine. The membership should demand that the church leadership make a valid attempt to do so IMO.

[charity]

kantgomo, what doctrine do you think is unclear?

[The Dude]

It is often claimed at exmormon.org that FAIR serves the anti's purpose better than it does the apologists'. I was always skeptical of that, although it was backed up by several individual posters who claimed that FAIR was a step in intellectually processing them out of the Church.

I was skeptical, but not anymore looking at the high percentage of people who say FAIR MB has increased their doubts.

I voted that I came with doubts and they stayed about the same.

[Daniel Peterson]

I am curious about whether FARMS and its allied organizations have any interactions and cross-pollenization with Sunstone, Dialogue, Signature Press, etc.  Are there commonalities, or do they get along like gunfighters at the O.K. corral?

We have interactions. We review each other's stuff, and Signature's lawyers have contacted FARMS once or twice.

First, let me say that the weak explanations offered by the apologists on FAIR and FARMS has destroyed my testimony FAR more than any anti material that I might have read.  So, I voted "It has weakened my testimony" although my testimony is non-existent at this point.

Let me simply say, for the record, that the strong explanations offered by the scholars at FARMS have been helpful to very many people in strengthening their testimonies. Or so they say.

Most apologists are some of the rudest, most intolerant people I know.

That's quite a generalization.

Merry Christmas!

I'm sorry, but being LDS does not automatically make you nice and being non-LDS doesn't automatically make you mean.

Has anyone seriously suggested otherwise?

There used to be a lot of cross pollenization between the various scholarly forums.  Dallin Oaks even participated with the Sunstone/Dialogue crowd for a time.

True. And, to take a much less significant example, I used to write for Sunstone and speak at Sunstone symposia. (I still have a very friendly relationship with the editor of Sunstone, as I did with his predecessor.)

During the mid to late 80's on into the 90's there was a crackdown of sorts, including the highly discussed "September Six."

It's only fair to mention that there had also been a distinct turn to the left on the part of both Sunstone and Dialogue by that point, and that Signature Books had, as it were, come out of the closet as a dissident press.

I'd like to see the church leadership give some good solid answers and explanations for the history of the church and also define some solid doctrine.  The membership should demand that the church leadership make a valid attempt to do so IMO.

Personally, I think the degree of consistency and coherence in Latter-day Saint doctrine and the degree of clarity and integrity in Latter-day Saint historiography is already very high. I'm not inclined to "demand" from Church leadership what is already readily accessible to me.

[Scottie]

First, let me say that the weak explanations offered by the apologists on FAIR and FARMS has destroyed my testimony FAR more than any anti material that I might have read.  So, I voted "It has weakened my testimony" although my testimony is non-existent at this point.

Let me simply say, for the record, that the strong explanations offered by the scholars at FARMS have been helpful to very many people in strengthening their testimonies. Or so they say.

Uhhh...there are strong explainations on FAIR and FARMS??? I must have missed those ones...

But, I'm glad that many have found them useful.

Most apologists are some of the rudest, most intolerant people I know.

That's quite a generalization.

Yes it is, and from my experiences it is true.

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to you, too!! (Wow! A kind word to a critic from DCP! I'm writing this in my journal tonight!)

I'm sorry, but being LDS does not automatically make you nice and being non-LDS doesn't automatically make you mean.

Has anyone seriously suggested otherwise?

Yes. To quote charity's earlier post (emphesis added by me)

The behavior of some of the anti-Mormons who post here showed me how the spirit of the adversary works. Some people posting here have shown an absolute refusal to be open to ideas presented to them. But what has surprised me most is the hatred. There is opposition in all things.

Translated: Most non-Mormons are filled with hatred and Satan has a firm grasp on them, whereas TBM's are just loving, patient and tolerant victoms of the lunatic rantings of misguided, hateful anti's.

[maxrep12]

First, let me say that the weak explanations offered by the apologists on FAIR and FARMS has destroyed my testimony FAR more than any anti material that I might have read.

[Dunamis]

as for my testimony and these boards: i would feel more welcome in a lions den. whats with the how do you do dunamis? seriously.

1. We have had a high level of trolling the past week. Our terror alert goes up when that happens. We are on orange right now and will reach red before the children return to school.

2. You are averaging 22 posts a day. High posting = low content. That means you are running twice the chance of flagging our attention.

I always find it wise to lay low when you enter new territory. Find out how the place runs. It makes a better impression than wallpapering the locals with dozens of noisy and disrespectful posts. However, the fact that you haven't been eaten by the lions means that you are adapting and adding more to discussions. It also means that you show potential of offering something of value because we rarely spend this much time with posters who yank our chains. Now let go of my pant leg!

[charity]

Scottie Kindly notice my phrase ""the behavior of some of the anti-Mormons.... But what has surprised me most is the hatred." Then you restated that as "Translated: Most non-Mormons are filled with hatred and Satan has a firm grasp on them, whereas TBM's are just loving, patient and tolerant victoms of the lunatic rantings of misguided, hateful anti's."

First, notice how the word I used, some, is changed to most.

Second, notice how I said anti-Mormon and that was changed to non-Mormon.

Really. Get a grip. I can understand honest differences of opinion. But when you start using words a person did not use to change the meaning, then we have something else going on. What would motivate someone to deliberately try to create misundestanding? Could it be animosity?

[UteFan]

I voted I had doubts I still have the same doubts. Though I suppose that's not really true.

More accuratly I'd say When I came here I had questions now I have doubts. Some related to the questions I had but some entirely new ones I didn't even know existed before I came here.

But I would say some of my questions have been answered so I suppose I could also vote that my testimony was strenghened.

[Dunamis]

Animosity from the apologists destroys the purpose of their presence.

Do not assign motives to posters. This is a message board. It was never intended to be a cathedral.

"The views expressed here should not be your primary source of information about Mormonism or FAIR."

"The FAIR Message Board is provided as a service of FAIR. It is a private board, and people are free to participate as long as they abide by the rules under which the board is governed. The views expressed by board participants are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of FAIR as an organization."

[Daniel Peterson]

Uhhh...there are strong explainations on FAIR and FARMS???  I must have missed those ones...

Apparently so.

Most apologists are some of the rudest, most intolerant people I know.

That's quite a generalization.

Yes it is, and from my experiences it is true.

It strikes me as a preposterous and malicious falsehood.

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to you, too!! (Wow! A kind word to a critic from DCP! I'm writing this in my journal tonight!)

I'm not a monster, Scottie, and it's very poor form on your part to suggest that I am.

I'm sorry, but being LDS does not automatically make you nice and being non-LDS doesn't automatically make you mean.

Has anyone seriously suggested otherwise?

Yes. To quote charity's earlier post (emphesis added by me)

The behavior of some of the anti-Mormons who post here showed me how the spirit of the adversary works. Some people posting here have shown an absolute refusal to be open to ideas presented to them. But what has surprised me most is the hatred. There is opposition in all things.

Translated: Most non-Mormons are filled with hatred and Satan has a firm grasp on them, whereas TBM's are just loving, patient and tolerant victoms of the lunatic rantings of misguided, hateful anti's.

Charity did not say that anti-Mormons were automatically bad, or that Mormons are automatically good, nor did she say that most non-Mormons are filled with hatred. You're grossly misrepresenting what she wrote.

Please take a break, if only for this Christmas season, from bearing false witness against people.

[Boy Named Sue]

Charity did not say that anti-Mormons were automatically bad, or that Mormons are automatically good, nor did she say that most non-Mormons are filled with hatred.  You're grossly misrepresenting what she wrote.

Please take a break, if only for this Christmas season, from bearing false witness against people.

with all due respect, i never got the impression that she was being complimentary when attaching "anti-mormon" to someone. i wouldnt even try to guess to what degree she considered one to be full, half full, unfull, slightly full of hatred, but i have no problem considering her label to be adversarial.

again, i prefer the proposed application of anti-mormon to be those that seek the destruction of the church as an institution and the replacement of mormonism with another religion or no religion, or something along those lines.

the rest is just casual darts that sting a little, often reflecting more on the one tossing the dart than on the subject of the "anti" label.

dr. peterson, you told me you were a monster. am i to believe that you are selectively monstering? perhaps you need an avatar.

edited to add: i realize i referred to a subject in another thread. whoa. i am getting dizzy here. forgive me.

[juliann]

It is often claimed at exmormon.org that FAIR serves the anti's purpose better than it does the apologists'. I was always skeptical of that, although it was backed up by several individual posters who claimed that FAIR was a step in intellectually processing them out of the Church.

That is so transparent it always cracks me up. They always say that on the talking head political shows, too....and the minute somebody tells the other side to "keep going" on a regular basis you know darn well they are losing the PR battle and pretending they don't care. I've lost count of the times I've been told I am the topic du jour at RFM....they seem almost obsessed with us. I was sent a pretty funny link today...somebody emailed Todd Compton and asked if they could put up a billboard about his book. They are so oblivious to reality (which happens when you are homeschooled by RFMers and not allowed to talk to the neighbors) they were not aware he was a believing Mormon (they obviously think his book is anti-Mormon ). The reaction to his revelation was pretty darn funny.

[The Dude]

I've lost count of the times I've been told I am the topic du jour at RFM...

Aw, you're jealous of Dr. Peterson.

It is often claimed at exmormon.org that FAIR serves the anti's purpose better than it does the apologists'.  I was always skeptical of that, although it was backed up by several individual posters who claimed that FAIR was a step in intellectually processing them out of the Church.

That is so transparent it always cracks me up. They always say that on the talking head political shows, too....and the minute somebody tells the other side to "keep going" on a regular basis you know darn well they are losing the PR battle and pretending they don't care. I've lost count of the times I've been told I am the topic du jour at RFM....they seem almost obsessed with us. I was sent a pretty funny link today...somebody emailed Todd Compton and asked if they could put up a billboard about his book. They are so oblivious to reality (which happens when you are homeschooled by RFMers and not allowed to talk to the neighbors) they were not aware he was a believing Mormon (they obviously think his book is anti-Mormon ). The reaction to his revelation was pretty darn funny.

Sorry I don't follow the rest of your post. How typical of me. Perhaps you would like to comment on the results of the poll? I'm guessing you voted "I never had a testimony," since saying otherwise would nudge you towards fundamentalism.

[maxrep12]

It is often claimed at exmormon.org that FAIR serves the anti's purpose better than it does the apologists'.  I was always skeptical of that, although it was backed up by several individual posters who claimed that FAIR was a step in intellectually processing them out of the Church.

That is so transparent it always cracks me up. They always say that on the talking head political shows, too....and the minute somebody tells the other side to "keep going" on a regular basis you know darn well they are losing the PR battle and pretending they don't care.

Juliann,

you have piqued my curiosity here. Do you really feel the PR exposure the internet provides to the church, has a positive effect?

[juliann]

you have piqued my curiosity here. Do you really feel the PR exposure the internet provides to the church, has a positive effect?

How would we ever measure that? We have a very highly educated group on this message board....we don't tend to sit around and wait for people to spoonfeed us information. Nor would we rely on a message board for information...it can get you started, it can give you quick answers from unknown sources...but anyone who has done any academic work is very careful of what they take off the internet. It isn't even a stable source. I use the internet much like I would use the abstracts in a college computer system.

I think the church was caught by surprise with the explosion of hate sites. I don't think it will take them long to catch up....if they are even concerned. I know that FAIR is a burr under the antis' saddle simply because we are mentioned so much. It surprised me how FAIR took off. I suppose RFM is the other side of the coin...but to exist they have to maintain a bubble in which no one is allowed contact with the outside. So how would you compare? You don't have access to Church, FAIR or FARMS success stories anymore than RFMers have contact with anyone who could pop their balloon.

The "PR success" the church has is in real life. I am seeing more positive or at least neutral articles. Mormons are prominent in government (we are over represented, actually). Mormons are kind of all over in high places...business and otherwise. We are becoming less and less scary. Although it is still politically correct to attack most religion....those who do it cower when called on it. That is going to happen more and more. The internet is still new...I think we have a lot more to see.

[jayneedoe]

We are becoming less and less scary.

Juliann,

What do you mean by "scary"?

Jaynee

[juliann]

Well...it seems like if they aren't thinking we are a dangerous cult they are worrying we will take over the government.

[Daniel Peterson]

with all due respect, i never got the impression that she was being complimentary when attaching "anti-mormon" to someone.

I don't imagine that she was being complimentary. I don't think that anti-Mormon is much of a compliment, either. But that wasn't the issue.

Scottie suggested that somebody had claimed that being a Latter-day Saint automatically makes you nice, and that being a non-Latter-day Saint automatically makes you mean:

I'm sorry, but being LDS does not automatically make you nice and being non-LDS doesn't automatically make you mean.

I was puzzled by this, and wondered who, if anybody, had actually said such a thing as Scottie implied. I asked:

Has anyone seriously suggested otherwise?

To which Scottie replied:

Yes.  To quote charity's earlier post (emphesis added by me)

The behavior of some of the anti-Mormons who post here showed me how the spirit of the adversary works. Some people posting here have shown an absolute refusal to be open to ideas presented to them. But what has surprised me most is the hatred. There is opposition in all things.

You will note, however, that Charity said nothing about non-LDS or non-Mormons in general. She never even mentioned them. Instead, she was speaking about anti-Mormons, who are, at most, a subset of non-Mormons. And she wasn't even talking about all of them. Instead, she referred to "some of the anti-Mormons who post here . . . Some people posting here."

Scottie cannot reasonably derive, from the quotation he himself supplied as support for his accusation, any blanket claim that being a non-Latter-day Saint automatically makes you mean, let alone that being a Latter-day Saint automatically makes you nice. (Latter-day Saints aren't even so much as mentioned in the passage from Charity that Scottie cites.)

So, plainly, Scottie has grossly misrepresented the passage that he has chosen from Charity. And he's done it rather pointlessly, since anybody who can read English at least moderately well can quite easily see that he is misrepresenting it. But, astonishingly, he goes further still, offering an even more distorted caricature of the quotation:

Translated: Most non-Mormons are filled with hatred and Satan has a firm grasp on them, whereas TBM's are just loving, patient and tolerant victoms of the lunatic rantings of misguided, hateful anti's.

His "translation" crosses the line into blatant and quite shameful false witness. And then he has the gall to suggest that I treat others badly here.

[Cowpie]

suem, you said, referring to my post from another thread: "So in that case, it makes it OKAY for her to disrespect another denomination or religion."

Judgemental requires that a moral distinction be made between two positions. It isn't simply vanilla ice cream versus strawberry. It is vanilla = good and strawberry = wicked.

Charity, you did make a moral distinction between two postitions, but worse than that, you arrived at your positions dishonestly. You posited an LDS who goes to church every Sunday (they don't all, you know) against another Christian who goes to church only on Christmas and Easter (they don't all, you know).

Which brings up another little irony ... over on the membership thread they are defending keeping inactive on the rolls because you don't know their circumstances. Try that with those "other Christians," why don't you?

At any rate, there are just as many LDS who attend irregularly. They aren't as apt to attend on Christmas and Easter, though, because LDS don't have services on those days that are special enough to bring people out. They are more likely to attend when a baby is being blessed or something like that. What's the difference, really?

I never said that.  My mother never goes to church at all.  Nor does my brother and his family.  My two sons, 2 of my grandchildren, a daughter-in-law, a son-in-law are in that category, as well.  I don't think any of them are wicked.

I love the way everything in your personal life operates so beautifully and in your personal life your thoughts are so pure. Or are they? (evil laugh)

I think probably the reason I got jumped on was that there is a certain amount of defensiveness in the Christmas-Easter crowd.  They must think they aren't doing what they should be doing.  I didn't say that of them.

But you're saying it now!

You don't have to feel jumped on. You're the one who said that other denominations are never treated disrespectfully here. You just don't seem to realize that your comments are objectionable. I pointed it out to you. Why not just say, oh, okay, I'll try to do better? That would be nice.

[Cowpie]

It's hard to talk in the abstract on this matter, but I have definitely seen instances where anonymous posters posing as what they were not were ridiculously transparent.

And blatant dishonesty is hardly worthy of respect.

First, I'd like to second everything Scottie has said so far.

I think your perception is just a tad prejudiced, here, Scott. I've seen you make several errors in judgment by jumping to the conclusion that someone was being rabidly anti-mormon when they weren't. Often you and many others here are overly anxious to see persecution in all things.

What would Jesus do?

[Scottie]

Scottie Kindly notice my phrase ""the behavior of some of the anti-Mormons.... But what has surprised me most is the hatred."  Then you restated  that as "Translated: Most non-Mormons are filled with hatred and Satan has a firm grasp on them, whereas TBM's are just loving, patient and tolerant victoms of the lunatic rantings of misguided, hateful anti's."

First, notice how the word I used, some, is changed to most.

Second, notice how I said anti-Mormon and that was changed to non-Mormon.

Really. Get a grip.  I can understand honest differences of opinion.  But when you start using words a person did not use to change the meaning, then we have something else going on.  What would motivate someone to deliberately try to create misundestanding?  Could it be animosity?

Charity, you are right. I did mis-quote you, but it was completely on accident. I wasn't trying to glamorize your statement, (Well, at least not THAT much).

The some/most was just not thinking on my part and the non/anti was mis-typed. Please accept my apologies.

The basic point I was trying to get at here is that there seems to be this ongoing theme around here (especially by you) that the apologists are so loving and kind and post only decent and uplifting posts where the anti's/critics are horrid monsters that are mean and degrading.

The mere fact that you, in your original post, left out that some apologists are hateful tells me that you think they are not. I can't tell you how many times I've posted "by their fruits shall ye know them" after some apologist very meanly ripped some critic to shreds for stating nothing more than his opinion.

Certainly I am not saying that there are not mean antis/critics. However, they are rebuked a LOT more than the apologists for attacking, so the antis/critics have to be more polite here. The apologists can rip people to shreds without fear of moderator reprisal.

So, why is it that when you see this hatefulness on the apologist side that you don't recognize it? Are these posters not in Satans grip? Is it a righteous anger and therefore justified? Or, do you really believe that there aren't mean apologists on here? Or, maybe I am wrong in my observations?

[charity]

Scottie, apology accepted.

You wrote: "So, why is it that when you see this hatefulness on the apologist side that you don't recognize it? Are these posters not in Satans grip? Is it a righteous anger and therefore justified? Or, do you really believe that there aren't mean apologists on here? Or, maybe I am wrong in my observations?"

I have been thinking about this. I think I would have to admit that there are some sharp comments coming from some of us. I think I make a distinction between "apologist" and "friendly." And apologist has an area of expertise, a friendly just has a conviction. I put myself in the latter group. I don't have a background in ancient languages, meso-American geography, etc., but I can think, analyze, and argue.

Back to the topic: Maybe I look at the "anti-s are hateful but apologists aren't" situation like an Old West gunfight. The bad guy draws first, unprovoked. The good guy merely returns fire in self defense. Both are shooting bullets. One is justified, the other is not.

I have sometimes thought that in a heated exchange, some apologists and friendlies have gotten a little hot under the collar. And I have thought that in some of the more heated exchanges that the Spirit has probably left the room.

You may disagree with this but I don't find any apologists or friendlies "hateful." They would be going about their business had they not been "fired on." I also don't find that most of the non-member, ex-member, or even anti-Mormons on here to be hateful. But there are a couple. They have expressed hatred of Joseph Smith and other church leaders. They have expressed absolute disdain for anyone who is a faithful, believing member. That I find disturbing.

Thanks for listening.

[koakaipo]

re: the original question-My testimony hasn't been affected by internet dabbling in general. I have gone through many phases in terms of how I process the church and it's history and my testimony, have renegotiated this on a number of levels through the years, so I haven't actually been met with doozies as a result. I just find it sorta interesting to talk to others about the church in this type of medium more than anything.

[maxrep12]

Back to the topic:  Maybe I look at the "anti-s are hateful but apologists aren't" situation like an Old West gunfight.  The bad guy draws first, unprovoked.  The good guy merely returns fire in self defense.  Both are shooting bullets.  One is justified, the other is not.

I have sometimes thought that in a heated exchange, some apologists and friendlies have gotten a little hot under the collar.  And I have thought that in some of the more heated exchanges that the Spirit has probably left the room.

Has any apologist or "friendly" here received a calling of internet forum missionary with its corresponding keys and mantle of authority? Has the church approved or endorsed the answers that these forum members lay before us? Has the church even given its blessings as to the forum activity that takes place here?

The church has resources enough, and members enough to staff a forum, if it so desired. No question about it. It chooses not to. In my area, the church calls temple patrons. These are individuals who attend at schedualed times to ensure there will at least be some participation during operating hours. The church will call members to fill certain needs. Perhaps the church is on the cusp of calling internet missionaries?

This gunfight scenario is laughable. No thought is given to the circumstances that might encourage life long members to look into valid questions here on the internet. No thought is focused on the vigilante nature of apologetics, yet these individuals wrap themselves in the flag of mormonism without the church's request, approvel, or support. After this is done, any ill behavior is self excused. Apologists have come here, to the "gun fight", on their own volition.