What do you consider to be "Anti-mormon"?

[LDS Guy 1986]

Might you be an Anti-McCraney?

See Deborah's post above.

Do I mock Shawn McCraney for his beliefs? No, I do not mock anyones beliefs, but I have no tolerance for his hypocrisy and his constant and compulsive lying. He has the right to lie and lie on top of lie if he so wishes, it doesn't mean that people should allow it to go completely unchecked.

In the sense that I am against self proclaimed preachers using lies and hypocrisy, I am against McCraney, which by Biblical definition makes me a Anti-McCraney. In the sense of how I define Anti-Mormons and how Deborah defines Anti's, I am not Anti-McCraney. I do not lie about what he does, I do not twist the truth to make him seem worse than he is, I do not mock his "faith" (and I use that term loosely since hate is not faith). I do resist lies and hypocrisy, I especially resist a honorable profession like scholar being compares to hate-mongers like Shawn McCraney being placed in the same general category as a scholar. There is nothing scholarly about his work, he is the ultimate antithesis of a scholar and a man of God.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Would you consider your definition exclusive to Mormonism?

For instance, there have been many individuals and groups who have been actively opposed to the laws, policies, manuvers of the US government or even in protest of the civil status quo. Would such groups or individuals be considered anti-American?

Just probing here.

This is really comparing apples to oranges in my opinion.

[WalkerW]

Over the past while, more frequently of late, I've observed that anyone who presents any view that is contrary to what the LDS church claims as true or official is labeled as either "anti-mormon" or "attacking the church". Some of these views, I will admit, tend towards hateful criticism of the church. Yet, I'm surprised that other, more thoughtful and probing views of the church, or alternative views of the church, are also labeled the same way.

I'm interested in hearing your definition of "anti-mormon" and "attacking the church". Is there a difference between the two terms? Can one present contrary views of the church without being labeled "anti-mormon"? If so, what is the difference, and who has successfully presented critical views of the church without being viewed as "anti-mormon"?

Thanks,

H.

Move to a different realm: American politics. A Democrat may be critical of Republicans. A Democrat may disagree with Republican fiscal policies, social concerns, etc. A Democrat might have rational arguments against a Republican's position. A Democrat may be a critic of Republican views. But I would not characterize this as anti-Republican or anti-conservative.

On the other hand, think of Keith Olbermann.

Need I say more?

[thesometimesaint]

I don't have a problem with those who do their own research, and evaluate Mormonism even with a critical eye. thus decide Mormonism just isn't for them. What I object to is people who make a profit off of their Anti-Mormon crusade. Ala; Ed Decker.

[Senator]

Do I mock Shawn McCraney for his beliefs? No, I do not mock anyones beliefs, but I have no tolerance for his hypocrisy and his constant and compulsive lying. He has the right to lie and lie on top of lie if he so wishes, it doesn't mean that people should allow it to go completely unchecked.

In the sense that I am against self proclaimed preachers using lies and hypocrisy, I am against McCraney, which by Biblical definition makes me a Anti-McCraney. In the sense of how I define Anti-Mormons and how Deborah defines Anti's, I am not Anti-McCraney. I do not lie about what he does, I do not twist the truth to make him seem worse than he is, I do not mock his "faith" (and I use that term loosely since hate is not faith). I do resist lies and hypocrisy, I especially resist a honorable profession like scholar being compares to hate-mongers like Shawn McCraney being placed in the same general category as a scholar. There is nothing scholarly about his work, he is the ultimate antithesis of a scholar and a man of God.

I said that with tongue-in-cheek. I apologize that didn't come through.

I didn't mean to send you into a anti-McCraney rant.

[WalkerW]

I see nothing intrinsically wrong with the term anti-Mormon, though I've often seen it abused (in somewhat the same way I've seen other intrinsically useful terms like racist and fanatic and socialist and actor [think Steven Seagal] misused).

Don't forget fascist. That's one of my favorites.

[Senator]

This is really comparing apples to oranges in my opinion.

It might be.

But should it be?

[Mudcat]

Well, I am not LDS and I happen to post my own views here on occasion. By the definitions some have offered, the fact that I may engage publicly and critically with LDS would likely be enough to qualify me as an "Anti-Mormon"... and in a sense they might most certainly be correct.

Personally I don't categorize myself as an Anti-mormon, though I am certainly disagreeable with many teachings of the CoJCoLDS.

But to answer, I think a person who attempts to paint a picture of the history of those involved with the CoJCoLDS over time, it's practices, and so forth in the worst light that it could possibly be drawn.. well that seems pretty Anti to me. Of course that would only the beginning of it.

It gets worse though. There are people who draw upon non-LDS approved literature, but written by LDS and knowingly/falsely use it as pejoratives against the members of the CoJCoLDS. Certainly at this point, a person would have disembark from any intelligible criticism and begin a course of hate mongering.

Not to mention, those who might even associate LDS with other groups like FLDS and so forth. Well... that is just outright deception and evil.

It's when a person divorces themselves from any form of objectivity towards all this stuff, in preference to diluted solutions that "make the case" for them, that I think a person is anti-something.

..........

I had a 5 hour ride with a JW the other day. We spent a few days in training meetings on a new product launch.

Very devout fellow. He brought up religion and given his view, was disagreeable to quite a bit of what I believe.

I could tell he was getting a bit heated, when he got on the notion of the Trinity. I paused the conversation to say, "I understand you feel you have the very best reasons to believe what you do. I feel the same way in regards to my own beliefs. Likely, there isn't much that can be said on either part to really sway the other, but I don't mind continuing to discuss it. But, I think we should agree now, that at some point we will have to agree to disagree on a thing or two. I am prepared to listen to the arguments you have for your faith and also against where you feel I may be being misled as long as you are prepared to allow me to defend my own positions and questions yours."

He agreed and we had a wonderful conversation.

At the end... well he is still a JW and I am still an EV. However, I think we both have a much more expanded view of the others beliefs and we did find quite a lot of common betwixt ourselves.

I suppose, given his view, he could be considered an anti-EV or me an anti-JW. I just don't see it that way. I see it more like he is a pro-JW and I am pro-EV.

...............

I don't really think there is a hard fast line to what being "Anti" actually is. I tend to think, that when a person is prepared to sacrifice their own scruples to gain some sort of advantage they are anti-something instead of simply being pro towards their own beliefs.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Sky]

In the narrowest sense, the term

[WalkerW]

I see it more like he is a pro-JW and I am pro-EV.

Well put.

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, I am not LDS and I happen to post my own views here on occasion. By the definitions some have offered, the fact that I may engage publicly and critically with LDS would likely be enough to qualify me as an "Anti-Mormon"... and in a sense they might most certainly be correct.

Absolutely. Mudcat is one of the worst anti-Mormons in the world. Indeed, he's one of the worst people in the world. A fiend in human form. (There may be worse people somewhere, but I haven't encountered them.)

I just thought everybody oughta know.

[Libs]

Move to a different realm: American politics. A Democrat may be critical of Republicans. A Democrat may disagree with Republican fiscal policies, social concerns, etc. A Democrat might have rational arguments against a Republican's position. A Democrat may be a critic of Republican views. But I would not characterize this as anti-Republican or anti-conservative.

On the other hand, think of Keith Olbermann.

Need I say more?

Or Rush Limbaugh.

[Obiwan]

An Anti-Mormon is:

1. Someone who degrades the Church or it's people, usually unfairly so, in order to make an argument. Someone who is disrespectful when making an argument.

2. Someone who bears false witness, i.e. lies or misrepresents LDS theology, leaders words, etc. in order to be critical of it.

A Critic is:

1. Someone who doesn't degrade the Church or it's people, usually unfairly so, in order to make an argument. Respectfully makes an argument.

2. Someone who simply disagrees with LDS Theology, but doesn't need to misrepresent and lie about it in order to be critical of it.

Some LDS in order to be politically correct and so-called "respectful" classify everyone as a critic, even if they are being anti-mormon or engaging in anti-mormon behaviors and attitudes. I personally don't believe in doing that. I believe people should be called and represented by what they do. It wouldn't be fair to call someone a critic when they are being anti-mormon, when you have critics who don't act like anti-mormons also being called critics. I believe in being factual and truthful and accurate in ones describing things. Being politically correct, is not doing that. If some people don't like the term anti-mormon, then they should instead reflect on their behaviors that make them called that. A bigot is a bigot, no matter the name. Anti-mormons are bigots. Thus, it's further inappropriate to call such people "critics", because critics aren't bigots.

Of course, sometimes a critic CAN in fact engage in anti-mormon tactics and ideology's, and thus sometimes someone who is usually a critic can sometimes be called an anti-mormon or engaging in anti-mormonism in that particular thing alone.

Someone who simply disbelieves, believes differently, doesn't agree, etc. doesn't make someone anti-mormon. What makes someone anti-mormon is what I've described above. Someone can also be the nicest or most wonderful Christian in the world and also be an anti-mormon, like with the Joseph Smith/Jesus Christ DVD put out by Evangelicals sometime ago. I could see and feel the since "love" and concern, but they did nothing but bear false witness of mormonism in that video, thus it was sinister and sickening. The world can do without that "kind" of "love". It's like the love from some wonderful perfect man who turns out to be a child molester. He may be loving doing it, but he's still an abuser and perverter of all that is virtuous and lovely.

Anti-mormons are servants of the devil, for what they do, for the devil is the father of lies, and anti-mormons do nothing but LIE about mormonism and it's people. That's the difference.

Also, while the "technical" definition of "anti" doesn't necessarily mean someone is in a bad way against that thing, as I've described above for the term anti-mormon. Mormons however generally use the term anti-mormon to refer to those who are engaging in BAD behaviors and ideology, compared to those who simply don't agree such as with critics.

[Libs]

Most critics make a distinction between "anti-Mormon" and "anti-MormonISM". They will admit to the latter, but not to the former. Most are not against LDS, as people but, rather, against the teachings of the LDS Church. However, some do speak quite forcefully and rudely against the LDS people, sometimes insinuating they are stupid or brain damaged or whatever insult of the day...THAT, IMHO, then becomes "anti-Mormon". When you see the same kind of derogatory & bigoted labels that are, sometimes or often, directed towards a race or other minority groups, then I think one could accurately be called "anti-Mormon".

[Obiwan]

Most critics make a distinction between "anti-Mormon" and "anti-MormonISM". They will admit to the latter, but not to the former. Most are not against LDS, as people but, rather, against the teachings of the LDS Church. However, some do speak quite forcefully and rudely against the LDS people, sometimes insinuating they are stupid or brain damaged or whatever instult of the day...THAT, IMHO, then becomes "anti-Mormon". When you see the same kind of derogatory & bigoted labels that are, sometimes or often, directed towards a race or other minority groups, then I think one could accurately be called "anti-Mormon".

I would agree that most anti-mormons don't like the term anti-mormon, because they falsely believe that it means like you said that it means they are "against mormons". But, that has NEVER been the meaning of the term. The term simply refers to those who engage in anti-mormonism. Like, and anti-abortionist would be someone who's anti-abortion. Or, those against liberalism, or anti-liberalism are in fact anti-liberal. Of course, technically I'm against liberals also, not simply their ideology. As well, if anti-mormons are being honest, they would admit they are against mormons also, for they believe we are deceived, liars, follow perverted ideology, etc., so we must be stopped, like I believe liberals must be stopped.

But, for a fact, being anti-mormon means you embrace anti-mormon anti-mormonism ideology, not that you are necessarily against mormons as individuals, although as I explained, that also could be the case if they are actually being honest for many of them, but since it doesn't refer to all, that's certainly not the meaning of the term. Many simply hate our religion.

To be fair though, when you attack a persons sacred beliefs, you are in fact attacking them personally. Thus, the claim that anti-mormons are so "detatched" from being hurtful to mormons themselves is not really a good argument.

But, I know they know not what they do.... Still, doesn't change the evil of it. And they must be told, whether they want to hear it or not.

[Mudcat]

Absolutely. Mudcat is one of the worst anti-Mormons in the world. Indeed, he's one of the worst people in the world. A fiend in human form. (There may be worse people somewhere, but I haven't encountered them.)

I just thought everybody oughta know.

What a great sig line, had I such a proclivity.

I see that your on to me Dan. Apparently I'll have to dip just a bit further into my repertoire, as my passive/non-aggressive guise hasn't slipped past you.

edited some silliness

[paulpatter]

Over the past while, more frequently of late, I've observed that anyone who presents any view that is contrary to what the LDS church claims as true or official is labeled as either "anti-mormon" or "attacking the church".

Anyone who presents any view? Forgive me, but could it be that you're exaggerating?

: Some of these views, I will admit, tend towards hateful criticism of the church. Yet, I'm surprised that other, more thoughtful and probing views of the church, or alternative views of the church, are also labeled the same way.

This causes me to wonder if you live in an ultra-liberal city (Berkeley comes to mind).

: I'm interested in hearing your definition of "anti-mormon" and "attacking the church".

Both terms involve strong feelings against the church, with the second term being the most strident and typically the most overt. (It depends, though, on exactly what you mean by "attacking").

: Is there a difference between the two terms?

One can be "anti"--even quietly so--without attacking the church.

: Can one present contrary views of the church without being labeled "anti-mormon"?

Yes. Person in point: Sterling McMurrin (U. of U. professor, Commissioner of Education under JFK, friend of President McKay) who "described himself as a 'loyal heretic' [who] openly expressed his disbelief in many fundamental doctrines of Mormonism. But he really never left Utah and was always sympathetic to the church when contacted for comment by the national media" (Matters of Conscience: Conversations With Sterling M. McMurrin, L. Jackson Newell, 1996).

[TAO]

Over the past while, more frequently of late, I've observed that anyone who presents any view that is contrary to what the LDS church claims as true or official is labeled as either "anti-mormon" or "attacking the church". Some of these views, I will admit, tend towards hateful criticism of the church. Yet, I'm surprised that other, more thoughtful and probing views of the church, or alternative views of the church, are also labeled the same way.

I'm interested in hearing your definition of "anti-mormon" and "attacking the church". Is there a difference between the two terms? Can one present contrary views of the church without being labeled "anti-mormon"? If so, what is the difference, and who has successfully presented critical views of the church without being viewed as "anti-mormon"?

Thanks,

H.

Anti-Mormons are those whom obsess over trying to prove the church wrong.

However, I would say, it's generally good not to point fingers - we can do better than that.

The difference between a critic and an anti-mormon is that an anti-mormon goes out of his way to research simply to prove the church wrong, whereas a critic will not obsess over it, or is doing it for an indirect reason.

As said though, again, we shouldn't really be labeling people such - we should be worrying what we are instead.

[Libs]

I would agree that most anti-mormons don't like the term anti-mormon, because they falsely believe that it means like you said that it means they are "against mormons". But, that has NEVER been the meaning of the term.

If you think about it, that actually is the meaning of the word. Anti meaning against and Mormon meaning those who are LDS.

The term simply refers to those who engage in anti-mormonism. Like, and anti-abortionist would be someone who's anti-abortion.

Notice, most "anti-abortionists" do not call themselves that. The preferred term is "pro-life".

Or, those against liberalism, or anti-liberalism are in fact anti-liberal. Of course, technically I'm against liberals also, not simply their ideology. As well, if anti-mormons are being honest, they would admit they are against mormons also, for they believe we are deceived, liars, follow perverted ideology, etc., so we must be stopped, like I believe liberals must be stopped.

So, you are actually against the people who call themselves "liberals", and not just against their political ideology? Interesting. I happen to be politically moderate, but I do lean very hard to the left on many issues. So, you consider me an enemy?

But, for a fact, being anti-mormon means you embrace anti-mormon anti-mormonism ideology, not that you are necessarily against mormons as individuals, although as I explained, that also could be the case if they are actually being honest for many of them, but since it doesn't refer to all, that's certainly not the meaning of the term. Many simply hate our religion.

I think you can hate the religion, without hating the people who practice it. Perhaps, "hate" is a strong term, but I know there are some very conservative (yeah, conservative) Christians who believe that the LDS Church/LDS Theology is leading people away from God. Think about it...if you truly believed that, plus the idea that this one life is our only chance to be saved from an eternal hell, might you not do some pretty desperate looking things, to try and turn people around? That would not, however, excuse lying or namecalling or anything that degrades the person, but I do think you have to see it from their perspective, to really understand it.

To be fair though, when you attack a persons sacred beliefs, you are in fact attacking them personally. Thus, the claim that anti-mormons are so "detatched" from being hurtful to mormons themselves is not really a good argument.

Some are and some are not (detached). Really, it depends on the person. I totally understand how attacking the sacred beliefs of others can be taken very personally. I think most people do take it that way...but, that doesn't mean it is always intended to be taken personally.

But, I know they know not what they do.... Still, doesn't change the evil of it. And they must be told, whether they want to hear it or not.

Yes, I think both sides feel that way.

Personally, I don't think any of us should degrade another's religion. There is fine line between criticizing and attacking, a lot of the time, and it takes time and effort to walk that line. Religion, as you said, is a very personal thing and so much a part of many of our lives, that it is difficult to separate the religion from ourselves...and very difficult to hear someone criticize it. Criticisms (on all sides) should always be done respectfully and not in a degrading way. That's not always easy.

[Doug the Hutt]

LDSToronto, thank you for an interesting thread.

1. There are two directions that labels are applied:

a. given to one's own position. Generally people are more favorable when they speak of their own position and will use less-pejorative-sounding labels such as pro-truth-seeker, skeptic, nonbeliever, disagreeable, "pro-life", etc.

b. given to the other guy's position. People are less-favorable when applying a label on someone else especially when the other position presents a clear & present danger to their own position. As Obiwan pointed out, the attack of one's sacred beliefs is a personal attack, so it's understandable that there may be strong reaction to criticism without wandering down Academics-of-Anti-Morminsm Avenue. Sometimes people are more willing to give the other position the benefit of the doubt and choose a different label such as "critics of the church" or even pro-other-guy's-religion.

2. We are taught constantly to be en-guard for any-and-every-thing that can damage our testimony. It's more important than our lives or relationships -- flesh and bone come and go but we are taught that we'll have our testimony with us in the next life, and that testimony is our passport into the those kingdoms. This need-for-quick-defense is at the core for why people are, as Jaybear stated, "often very quick to accuse someone they disagree with of being dishonest".

3. Definition:

This thread has defined an anti-Mormon by stating that anti-Mormon(s): .

* are cynical

* argue that the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. was a fraud, scoundrel, etc.

* are those who do not believe the Prophet Joseph Smith was a prophet

* attack the Church with any comment that insinuates that the Brethren knowingly lie

* attack the credibility of the Book of Mormon, stating that it's not what the Prophet Joseph Smith said it is -- an ancient record dealing with the inhabitants of this continent and their interactions with God

* are people who discredit the Church with falsehoods, dishonesty, double-standards or other nefarious means.

* spend an excessive amount of time criticizing the Church

* criticize the Church for money or as a career

* attack the Church -- the action itself makes one an anti-Mormon

* have an "attitude" (assuming a negative one)

* make exclusively negative statements about the LDS Church (polemical arguments). According to LDS Guy 1986, people are not anti-Mormon if they seek answers to legitimate questions about Mormonism from LDS people. It follows that seeking answers to contrived questions from LDS people is an anti-Mormon characteristic; seeking legitimate answers from non-and-anti-Mormons must also be an anti-Mormon characteristic if this definition is accurate.

* regurgitate statements that "are not the full truth", "twisted" and make the church look evil.

* do not care about the Church's explanations or "the truth of LDS beliefs or doctrine"

* use the notion of questions as a pretext to belittle LDS people & beliefs

* hate Mormons

* reject the Brethren. One has rejected the Brethren by publicly disagreeing with them, belittle the Church or stir up animosity towards the Church. It's perhaps a bit militant, but this is spiritual war.

* intentionally seek to detract from, undermine or change the aims of the Church, the faith and practices of its adherents, or the interest of non-members through criticism and evidence often tainted by discrimination, persecution, hostility, bigotry, prejudice, opinion, pride, offended personal sensibilities, acting out, etc.

* is somebody who believes the Book of Mormon is not an ancient documentary, but in one case a complex parable

* is somebody who believes that most rules and practices inside modern Mormonism do not link back to the teachings found in the Book of Mormon, that it's a synthesis of insights of Joseph Smith, his brother and father (essentially a 19th century religious production -- not a book about real people). This person may still hold it quite valuable in how it positively affects their relationship with Christ -- the departure from orthodoxy is what makes them anti-Mormon.

* promotes a different public and anonymous face with regard to their beliefs about the Book of Mormon -- when they're with their LDS peers they make no indication of their non-orthodoxic views; when they're anonymous those views are shown to be hypocritical

* is anyone who refuses to find worth in or worship/work with someone simply due to the church they attend

* one who opposes Mormonism or Mormons, which is different than someone who disagrees with Mormonism/Mormons.

* is an individual or group who is actively opposed to the teachings or practices of the LDS Church, its leaders or members.

* puts down Mormon beliefs and mocks Mormons.

* disputes "facts" of Mormonism with a significantly different interpretation than an LDS person's interpretation. All "facts" are subject to interpretation, context and paradigm.

* not to be confused with a scholar

* attempts to paint a picture of the history of those involved with the CoJCoLDS over time, it's practices, and so forth in the worst light that it could possibly be drawn.

* intentionally associate the LDS Church with it's wacko spinoff apostate breakaway cult movements to try to leverage public sentiment of these minority groups against the mainstream LDS Church

* openly criticizes or teaches things that are not in harmony with the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

* is someone who degrades the Church or it's people, usually unfairly so, in order to make an argument, who is disrespectful when making an argument and bears false witness, i.e. lies or misrepresents LDS theology, leaders words, etc. in order to be critical of it.

* are servants of the devil

* do nothing but LIE about mormonism and it's people

* those who are engaging in BAD behaviors and ideology

* are against the teachings of the LDS Church

* speak quite forcefully and rudely against the LDS people with derogatory comments such as "stupid", "brain-damaged" and other derogatory & bigoted labels

* hate the LDS religion

* obsess over trying to prove the church wrong

* goes out of his way and research simply to prove the church wrong

4. Some dislike the term anti-Mormon because:

* it overplays historical Mormon victim status

* it detracts from us making sure we know who we are

* it may unfairly apply characteristics upon them which are not true

* it may inaccurately mean that the person is against Mormons as opposed to Mormonism

* it hinders their anti-Mormon cause by being affixed with that label

5. This thread has also considered how applying that "anti-" label on other religions works:

* it's pejorative and negative

* can be applied to every religion in the world to which one does not align with ideologically. If you do not believe that The Pope/ Ellen G. White/ Billy Graham/ Fred Phelps/ Warren Jeffs/ Mohammed/ The Dali Lama/ Sum Myung Moon/ L. Ron Hubbard/ David Koresh speaks the will of God then you by that definition are "anti-" their-religion. See item 1a for how one applies the label to oneself.

* "The opposing views must be coupled with bad feelings toward the opposing group" in order for a person to be legitimately anti-other-religion.

6. Other thoughts:

The anti-Mormon or anti-Mormonism label is only useful where one wishes to measure one's alignment to Mormonism. Is that really the same thing as measuring one's alignment to the truth? In many LDS minds I believe that the concepts of "truth" and "The Church/Mormonism/Mormons/etc." are synonymous, but I think the lack of distinction is inappropriate. I personally believe that truth is a separate entity than Church -- even a higher one, and I'd argue that Mormonism is a subset of Truth. Mormonism presently does not contain all truth, but Truth does contain Mormonism. When one goes to measure truth based on what the Church teaches then all they're doing is managing their level of orthodoxy. When one measures the Church on how true they are in their teachings then they're getting closer to a purer epistemology.

[smac97]

Would you consider your definition exclusive to Mormonism?

For instance, there have been many individuals and groups who have been actively opposed to the laws, policies, manuvers of the US government or even in protest of the civil status quo. Would such groups or individuals be considered anti-American?

Just probing here.

Political administrations come and go. They are, I think, distinguishable from the United States of America. Consequently, opposition to political administrations can and should be distinguished from opposition to the United States.

That said, there are people out there who hate America to its core, regardless of its political power players. Such folks are obviously "anti-American."

-Smac

[why me]

Antimormonism has expanded with the popularity of the Internet. On the Internet the LDS church is mocked, bashed, and hated. Quite amazing since the lds church stands for good values and wholesome living. Why would such a church receive so much hatred on the Internet. And why such mocking and bashing? It doesn't make sense but such is case.

The basis for antimormonism is too cast doubt in lds members minds about their faith in order to get them to leave their faith. And it is about influencing people to think and feel a certain way about mormons and the lds church and this way is not the positive.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Can you provide a reference for this claim, please?

I will once again Google this for you! LOL

[LDS Guy 1986]

I said that with tongue-in-cheek. I apologize that didn't come through.

I didn't mean to send you into a anti-McCraney rant.

Then I apologize deeply, McCraney is one of the few people in the world that I struggle trying to love like Christ loves me. If I was a bull, McCraney is my red cape that the matador would wave in front of my face.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Now for my observation. There is often a modicum of judgment that occurs when critics/doubters/so-called-anti's and apologists/TBMs/defenders-of-the-faith get together. For example, you judged my intention and my message above. In a previous message, rcrocket called me an anti-mormon based on my doubts. I'm not sure what this says, but it says something...

Please, I didn't make judgement about anything except the words you said, I didn't even come after you, I only rebutted what I though was a poor comparison. I only said that comparing a hypocrite like McCraney to a scholar is an insult to scholars the world over. I even acknowledged that you were not speaking out of personal belief but playing the devil's advocate. I you took offense then I am sorry, but there was nothing to take offence too, IMO.

Can you provide a reference for this claim, please?

With higher levels of education come higher levels of Church activity, as illustrated in Chart 4. The correlation is startling, with Church attendance rates reaching 70 to 80 percent of those with sixteen years (or more) of education.⁷

This can be found at http://www.fairlds.o..._Mormonism.html, it is the second topic discussed on the page and has a graph showing the data collected.

Also Mormons have higher GPA's, higher rates of women graduates, and higher number of advanced degrees than any other faith and the US populous as a whole.