Top Ten Anti-Mormon Arguments

[saemo]

I would disagree with the part in bold. Generally those aren't serious queries, they are attacks, and they are usually accompanied with a very strong double standard, in other words, they refuse to inquire in their own religious beliefs with the same intensity or honesty. It is one reason that Mormons do not attack other religions but merely present their own and let the person decide.

You only enforce my point. Thanks.

[cdowis]

Balzar,

Your post shows that you did not bother to read my post. You pretend that I said anyone who asks questions is an antimormon. I won't bother to respond to this nonsense, except to say that if you were to read my post, I said that the missionary should try to move the discussion towards doctrine. To show how the BOM is a second witness.

This applies to the sincere investigator. The anti will want to continue talking about anti stuff.

I wish you all the best and you can keep the hankerchief.

[awesome0]

I think in general this is a very dangerous topic to discuss, but I think it large part depends on the your definition of "top 10".

If the "top 10" is most often, then you have concerns like

1. "You aren't christian"

2. "We don't need religion"

3. The bible says no one should add to it.

etc.

I think there are great answers to those questions.

If the top is most difficult, like

1. Why/when/how did JS practice polygamy

2. What is Adam/God theory

3. BoA, stuff

4. How literal are the OT, NT, and BoM

While apologists might have reasonable answers to some of those, I think reasonable doesn't eliminate entirely the sense of doubt those issues can raise in a young man's mind.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 01 January 2011 - 12:02 PM, said:

I would disagree with the part in bold. Generally those aren't serious queries, they are attacks, and they are usually accompanied with a very strong double standard, in other words, they refuse to inquire in their own religious beliefs with the same intensity or honesty. It is one reason that Mormons do not attack other religions but merely present their own and let the person decide.

You only enforce my point. Thanks.

Like I said, attacks with a strong double standard.

[Jeanne]

I am not anti-mormon though my post on this subject may seem so. I just never get straight answers and shut out on questions because I may not

agree. How else are we to find out truths..yours or mine..?? Those of us who feel like we have been lied to, (with many in agreement here who are

TBM) just don't feel like this should continue. I truly believe that you can still retain your membership by stating the truth. To arm your new missionaries

with knowledge, not evasive answers.

I am from Mormons who came across the plains in handcarts after leaving Sweden, they were told there was a land of promise..a land of milk and

honey waiting for them. They did not realize they would trek by handcarts to this valley. I will always respect and admire my heritage. I may not agree

with alot of the Mormon doctrine, but that does not change my love and respect for a tiny girl, (my great-great grandmother) who trekked across

with bloody feet..and some sorrow to find that land of promise.

Enough of the "anti this and anti that"..these are questions that everyone should have answers to. It seems that the Mormon Church has become

its own worse enemy. Face the facts, deal with it, and if you can do this with any kind of spirit..then you can gain something from all of this.

Hugs and regards,

Jeanne

[Jeff K.]

Some things are important, some things aren't.

It doesn't matter when or who you ancestors might be, whether they crossed the plains, remained in the ark with Noah, or helped crucify Jesus. It does not give you an imprimatur of credibility.

Most people here give very straightforward answers, however they try to give them in context, which you might call evasive, but is really just a cover for an answer you may not like. Care to show us some of those evasive answers and allow us to see why you think they are evasive?

As to "anti" this or "anti" that, it may be you prefer the term "pro" this or "pro" that? The difference between inquiry and attack is sometimes vague, but in my dealings with questions that have been answered hundreds of times (and yet asked again), it is generally "attack", not understanding.

If you believe the Mormon church has become its own worst enemy, then we need more enemies the Mormon church . The church has grown and continues to grow, is stronger now than before, and finds inroads throughout the world. I would say the anti Mormons, those who continuously attack the church that are their own worst enemy. They tend to look somewhat ridiculous when confronted with the truth of the matter. They are left going back to their personal rosaries and repeating the same mantra again and again. This isn't good for them.

[Jeanne]

It does matter who my ancestors are..and how much they mean to me. It is a part of me. My basic point is that just because we may not agree on things,

that doesn't make me "anti" anything. I don't particularly care for peas..but it doesn't mean I hate vegetables. If certain things don't matter to you, that is

fine..but you know..it should matter.

Happy New Year,

Jeanne:rolleyes:

[Jeff K.]

My Muslim friends do not agree with me being a Mormon, they think I should be a Muslim. Catholics in my family do not agree with my conversion to the Mormon Church, neither do the Baptsis, and Lutherans. But I would say almost none of them is anti Mormon.

Usually the anti Mormons are those who actively attack the church versus simply disagreeing with my joining it. in other words anti Mormons do not merely offer their doctrine, they look for ways to attack the doctrine I follow. This is what makes an anti Mormon.

[Balzer]

Balzar,

Your post shows that you did not bother to read my post. You pretend that I said anyone who asks questions is an antimormon. I won't bother to respond to this nonsense, except to say that if you were to read my post, I said that the missionary should try to move the discussion towards doctrine. To show how the BOM is a second witness.

This applies to the sincere investigator. The anti will want to continue talking about anti stuff.

I wish you all the best and you can keep the hankerchief.

Well geez, now I wonder if you read your post? I did. And I truly don't have a clue how you might distinguish, or even if you distinguish, an "anti" from a "sincere investigator." Apparently one is only sincere if he/she does not ask questions about things that bother you (translation: things for which you have no answers or inadequate answers) such as (your examples) history, archeology, DNA, etc. If one asks such questions, they are "not sincere" and the missionary should not "waste their time." You refer to those that ask such questions as drooling, stupid, and fumbling. You characterize such questions as "guff." You espouse an approach that would utterly avoid any such questions and focus solely on the easy stuff, that which does not conflict with the Bible. I mean really, where's the fun in that? Is this really the advice you wanna give the young missionary? Isn''t this precisely what many so-called "anti-Mormons" complain about, Mormons dodging these very issues? Wasn't the point of this thread to get some advice on how to answer the very questions you deem "guff?" I'm betting the OP was looking for something other than "dismiss and move on to the next guy."

Thanks for the hankie, I guess I'll need it.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[Palerider]

I am not anti-mormon though my post on this subject may seem so. I just never get straight answers and shut out on questions because I may not

agree. How else are we to find out truths..yours or mine..?? Those of us who feel like we have been lied to, (with many in agreement here who are

TBM) just don't feel like this should continue. I truly believe that you can still retain your membership by stating the truth. To arm your new missionaries

with knowledge, not evasive answers.

I am from Mormons who came across the plains in handcarts after leaving Sweden, they were told there was a land of promise..a land of milk and

honey waiting for them. They did not realize they would trek by handcarts to this valley. I will always respect and admire my heritage. I may not agree

with alot of the Mormon doctrine, but that does not change my love and respect for a tiny girl, (my great-great grandmother) who trekked across

with bloody feet..and some sorrow to find that land of promise.

Enough of the "anti this and anti that"..these are questions that everyone should have answers to. It seems that the Mormon Church has become

its own worse enemy. Face the facts, deal with it, and if you can do this with any kind of spirit..then you can gain something from all of this.

Hugs and regards,

Jeanne

I absolutely agree!

[consiglieri]

For the record, I do not view anybody who asks questions, even challenging questions, about Mormonism to be anti-Mormon. I apologize once again if the title of this thread led people to think I do.

When I was taking the missionary discussions, I asked about the Trinity. The missionaries pointed me to the account of Jesus' baptism in Matthew. That answered the question for me.

I also asked the missionaries about being saved by faith alone, and they helped me by pointing to a passage in James about works also being required.

I was asking questions out of a desire to learn, not because I wanted to stump the missionaries.

____________________

I also agree that there are many questions regarding Mormonism that have less than satisfactory answers. Just because somebody can come up with some sort of answer does not automatically make it satisfactory, though I know I once felt that way.

The most important thing is to treat people who question courteously and with respect. When I do so, my experience has been they will reciprocate in kind.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mortal Man]

I have been following this thread as much as time permits, and have received a lot of good ideas as to what (and what not) to present tomorrow evening.

So how'd it go?

[consiglieri]

So how'd it go?

Pretty anti-climactic, actually.

I talked about my first encounter being blown away by anti-Mormon literature brought home by my JW brother and the allegation there were over 3,000 changes in the Book of Mormon.

Then how I skipped church the next Sunday because I felt so bad; but that made me feel worse.

So I went to a fireside that night, where completely parenthetically, the speaker mentioned that sometimes people bring up the 3,000 changes in the Book of Mormon, and explained they were spelling and grammar changes.

I felt a huge weight go off my shoulders.

One young man asked about the Mountain Meadows Massacre that they were studying in school. He asked what it was about.

I said, "Well, in a nutshell, it was back on September 11, 1857, when some Mormons massacred a bunch of emigrants and blamed it on the Indians."

(I think people were shocked at how forthright my nutshell was.)

Anyway, I went on to say it was completely indefensible; and that in no way should we ever try to defend it or excuse it.

It is a black spot on the Mormon Church, and there's nothing we can do at this point to make it any better.

All we can do is tell it like it was and not try to whitewash it.

On the other hand, I also offered that we shouldn't feel like we have to defend anything that somebody else does just because they happen to be Mormon.

And we also shouldn't get into the trap of thinking that any bad thing a Mormon does necessarily reflects badly on the Church, and we don't need to get defensive over it.

That seemed to help.

I think for this one young man, at least, it was a worthwhile meeting.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[todd520]

Well geez, now I wonder if you read your post? I did. And I truly don't have a clue how you might distinguish, or even if you distinguish, an "anti" from a "sincere investigator." Apparently one is only sincere if he/she does not ask questions about things that bother you (translation: things for which you have no answers or inadequate answers) such as (your examples) history, archeology, DNA, etc. If one asks such questions, they are "not sincere" and the missionary should not "waste their time." You refer to those that ask such questions as drooling, stupid, and fumbling. You characterize such questions as "guff." You espouse an approach that would utterly avoid any such questions and focus solely on the easy stuff, that which does not conflict with the Bible. I mean really, where's the fun in that? Is this really the advice you wanna give the young missionary? Isn''t this precisely what many so-called "anti-Mormons" complain about, Mormons dodging these very issues? Wasn't the point of this thread to get some advice on how to answer the very questions you deem "guff?" I'm betting the OP was looking for something other than "dismiss and move on to the next guy."

Thanks for the hankie, I guess I'll need it.

Respectfully,

Balzer

Balzer, I think there are clear differences between anti LDS apologists and LDS Investigators.

Usually withing about 3-4 questions you can tell if you are engaged with a sincere investigator or not. It often shows up in the tone of the question.

I don't feel Missionaries should spend their time speaking with the anti-apologists. One would probably need to spend significant time at the FAIR site to deal with some of the attacks from Apologists.

[cdowis]

I would like to clarify something here.

The OP was on anti-mormon arguments, not those who have been deceived by the antis. I am specifically referring to those professional antis who spend their life efforts in an attempt to destroy the church. An example is Hank Hannegraff who makes a big deal over the name "Land of Moron", as if that alone refuted the BOM.

It is sad that there are those who are deceived by these individuals, but the blame clearly lies with the perpetuators, and the investigator is simply a victim.

[semlogo]

I think the strongest arguements against Mormonism are also the strongest arguements against God.

If you are religious, there are only two choices... Catholic or LDS. Either the true Church never left, or it's been restored. The Evangelicals have no leg to stand on, as you can't get good fruit from a bad tree.

However, if you discount belief in God... it really doesn't matter.

That's only an argument that works on people who place importance on structure, organization, and authority. Not everyone looks at religion that way.

[ELF1024]

Polygamist Pummeled by Wives for Planning Fifth Marriage

FLDS? LDS Offshoot? Nope...

[Peculiar Light]

Hmmmmm...do you mean the top ten most effective antiMormon criticisms? (In terms of causing people to leave the Church or not join?) Or, do you mean the top ten most popular/cited arguments made by the critics of the Church?

I think that the most damaging arguments against the Church are bigger, emotional concepts rather than specific

Here are a few of what I sense are some of the most damaging to the Church are (not in any order):

1. Joseph Smith was sexually immoral and engaged in polyandry, polygamy, and pedeophilia. (Mormonism built upon a foundation of self-satisfying sexual philandering.)

2. There is not a single archeological proof for the Book of Mormon. (Plays to logical proof instincts.)

3. Joseph Smith's supposed failed prophesies. (Plays to moralistic sensibilities.)

4. Joseph translating with his face in a hat, peep stones, hunting gold, and other forms of magik. (Makes Mormonism feel strange and cultic)

5. The LDS Church is a controlling cult that dictates the life choices and finances of its members. (Fear of losing freedom and choice.)

6. The LDS Church is racist and homophobic...and intolerant. (How could people who hate be Christians?)

7. The Church has no proof...but rather asks you to trust your emotions to prove it is true. (Are the Mormons deceiving me by manipulating my feelings?)

8. Mormonism, as any religion is not supported by science and reason -- the creation, Adam and Eve, tower of Babel, evolution, parting the red sea, the existence of God, morality, etc. (Just another far-fetched human-created mythology.)

9. Mormonism is a cult that changes its beliefs to bend to social and political pressure. (Polygamy, birth control, blacks in the priesthood, etc.)

10. Consiglieri is a Mormon. (Something to be avoided at all costs.)

Often, these are soft, emotive arguments that are harder to rebut because of the visceral nature of the claim. I find these to be far more powerful than arguing over a doctrinal point.

Thanks to Prop 8 and the media coverage, accusations of homophobia are a big topic for the saints here in California, plus I think that a lot of members just do no understand the teachings of the church. Some compare the issue with same-sex attraction of today with that of blacks in the priesthood of last generation.

It is very much a topic of interest to me, since I have same-sex attraction. If you want any help, let me know.