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

[sjdawg]

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

Do baptism rates increase with higher levels of Education?

[LDS Guy 1986]

Do baptism rates increase with higher levels of Education?

I don't know if this study has been done, I am only goggling this stuff guys.

Personally, I feel that if there was a correlation between education and baptism rate (I don't believe there is) but it would probably be a negative correlation. We are warned that the proud of knowledge and the proud of wealth are the least likely to accept the Lord Jesus Christ and his gospel. This isn't what was asked though, what was asked is does getting better educated increase or decrease an LDS members faith. The empirical evidence says that the more educated a Mormon is the more like they are to be an active member of the Church so I say that education increases faith in the restored Gospel.

In almost every other faith though the trend tends to be the opposite, the more educated you are the less likely you are to be active in your church.

[LeSellers]

An anti-mormon is one whose (primary) purpose in life is to discredit The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by any means fair or (more often) foul. His presupposition is that the Church of Jesus Christ is false, and any evidence to the contrary is immediately suspect and usually ignored completely.

He will use discredited claims and report them as substantiated fact, will not recant an assertion made earlier, even in the face of overwhelming evidence it was erroneous.

He typically uses ad hominem attacks against Joseph Smith (and usually Brigham Young and other early Church leaders, and sometimes against recent ones), taking all available evidence to be in the most damning cast possible, without even considering alternative interpretations.

He tells us what we believe, and refuses to change his statements when shown, conclusively, that his charge is false.

Usually, there is one of two approaches: either he takes one issue to absurd extremes and hammers it beyond all recognition, or he takes the shotgun approach and proves the old Jewish proverb correct: One fool can ask more questions than ten wise men can answer.

Lehi

[Walden]

If, in my support of the Church, I used falsehoods (i.e. telling the history in a way that it didn't actually happen), dishonesty (including the omission of important details in relating the story), and double standards (including judging people and events differently based on their religion), what would that make me?

On this board, that makes you a first-rate apologist!

[consiglieri]

Perhaps the unstated premise in this thread is why we employ labels at all.

I think we use labels not only for convenience sake, but to clearly designate who is in our group (and hence friendly) from those who are not in our group (and hence dangerous).

My experience has been that the label of "anti-Mormon" is commonly used in the LDS Church as a means of demonizing opponents and as a shorthand method of labeling either other people or certain literature as "other," "dangerous," and "to be avoided at all costs."

When you say "anti-Mormon," you've said it all.

But that's just my experience.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LDSToronto]

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.

LDSGuy, I didn't take offense; I was confused. It was *you* that a) introduced Shawn McCraney to the discussion and then b) refuted a comparison that I hadn't even made. Recall, I was asking about scholars in general, and you conflated my question about scholars with your introduction of McCraney. I made no mention of McCraney (go back and read the thread) because I didn't know who he was or why his introduction was germane to the conversation and I didn't feel like looking him up. Nor was I playing the devil's advocate; I was asking a sincere question. And that sincere question had nothing to do with this McCraney character that you introduced.

To sum up, it seemed like you were arguing with yourself, and allowing your strong reaction to McCraney to cloud your judgment concerning my posts. Nothing was offensive, but much was confusing.

H.

[Palerider]

Perhaps the unstated premise in this thread is why we employ labels at all.

I think we use labels not only for convenience sake, but to clearly designate who is in our group (and hence friendly) from those who are not in our group (and hence dangerous).

My experience has been that the label of "anti-Mormon" is commonly used in the LDS Church as a means of demonizing opponents and as a shorthand method of labeling either other people or certain literature as "other," "dangerous," and "to be avoided at all costs."

When you say "anti-Mormon," you've said it all.

But that's just my experience.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Awfully close to the truth there Consiglieri.......that must have stung.

[LDS Guy 1986]

LDSGuy, I didn't take offense; I was confused. It was *you* that a) introduced Shawn McCraney to the discussion and then b) refuted a comparison that I hadn't even made. Recall, I was asking about scholars in general, and you conflated my question about scholars with your introduction of McCraney. I made no mention of McCraney (go back and read the thread) because I didn't know who he was or why his introduction was germane to the conversation and I didn't feel like looking him up. Nor was I playing the devil's advocate; I was asking a sincere question. And that sincere question had nothing to do with this McCraney character that you introduced.

To sum up, it seemed like you were arguing with yourself, and allowing your strong reaction to McCraney to cloud your judgment concerning my posts. Nothing was offensive, but much was confusing.

H.

I didn't introduce Shawn, please go back and read. Another poster did, and you started talking about scholars in response.

I know this was a devil's advocate position but it infers that a hypocrite like Shawn is a scholar, this is the problem I had.

You are completely wrong though I did not bring up Shawn McCraney, you assume I did but which means you probably didn't read the post you first replied to.

This is probably what lead to your confusion but if you go back and look you clearly imply that people like Shawn are scholars, even though you didn't mean to.

[Daniel Peterson]

Perhaps the unstated premise in this thread is why we employ labels at all.

I think we use labels not only for convenience sake, but to clearly designate who is in our group (and hence friendly) from those who are not in our group (and hence dangerous).

I think we use labels because that's what language is.

To say that somebody is tall or short or fast or blonde or intelligent or left-wing or inside or outside or a lawyer or a doctor or a carpenter or unemployed or a musician or unmusical or walking or standing or living or dead is to label that person. All language consists of putting things and people in groups. "The desk is black" puts the desk in the group of "black things." To say "She is a prom queen" is to include her in the larger class of "prom queens."

[sjdawg]

I think we use labels because that's what language is.

To say that somebody is tall or short or fast or blonde or intelligent or left-wing or inside or outside or a lawyer or a doctor or a carpenter or unemployed or a musician or unmusical or walking or standing or living or dead is to label that person. All language consists of putting things and people in groups. "The desk is black" puts the desk in the group of "black things." To say "She is a prom queen" is to include her in the larger class of "prom queens."

I suppose that is true but some of the groupings are very subjective. To say " my friend is a lawyer" is absolute. He completed the schooling and has the proper credentials. Saying someone is "left wing" or "anti-mormon" is much more subjective. We all have our own definitions of what those terms mean that might not be shared or understood by someone else.

[David T]

I think arrogant, prideful, and insult-tossing members of the Church who love smacking down intellectual opponents serve the anti-Mormon purpose far more effectively than those who happen not to believe our Church is true.

[sjdawg]

I think arrogant, prideful, and insult-tossing members of the Church who love smacking down intellectual opponents serve the anti-Mormon purpose far more effectively than those who happen not to believe our Church is true.

+1. I suspect the truly humble members of the Church get nothing but respect from the majority of those not of the LDS faith.

[Daniel Peterson]

I think arrogant, prideful, and insult-tossing members of the Church who love smacking down intellectual opponents serve the anti-Mormon purpose far more effectively than those who happen not to believe our Church is true.

I take this as a personal attack.

[David T]

I take this as a personal attack.

That certainly wasn't my intent, because you were honestly nowhere near my mind when I thought or wrote it. Nor were any other specific posters here, for that matter. (For the record, I haven't read the whole thread - it's just an answer to the OP, which is all I read when I presented my post) .Who I used to be, in fact, was what was on my mind.

Its from my personal experience as one who, shortly after joining the Church, became arrogant, prideful, and gleeful in sending out smackdowns - and seeing the results. (Before joining the Church, I was arrogant, prideful and gleeful in smacking down Mormons.) I've since been trying very hard not to be that in any way, for any reason. It's something I no longer take pleasure in, and recognize how much damage it does. Thoughtful dialogue and well expressed apologetics and scholarship can be wonderful and useful. Rhetoric filled polemical attacks are not, and can be at most counterproductive..

In fact, I think the worst anti-Christians in general are arrogant, prideful, and insult-tossing professed Christians who love smacking down intellectual opponents, and that they serve the anti-Christianity purpose far more effectively than those who happen not to believe Jesus is the Christ.

[LDSToronto]

I didn't introduce Shawn, please go back and read. Another poster did, and you started talking about scholars in response.

I stand corrected. It was 'rivers' who introduced McCraney, not you.

I know this was a devil's advocate position but it infers that a hypocrite like Shawn is a scholar, this is the problem I had.

This is probably what lead to your confusion but if you go back and look you clearly imply that people like Shawn are scholars, even though you didn't mean to.

OK, for the last time: I wasn't playing devil's advocate. When I do play devil's advocate, I make it abundantly clear that I am. Second, I underlined a sentence with Shawn McCraney's name in it, but my question was about academic's who make a living doing valid research, and not about 'Shawn McCraney'. Is it possible that your subsequent tirade against Shawn McCraney indicates a that McCraney is a hot-button for you, and that you couldn't see clearly what was being asked?

Look, I don't know how else to convince you that I had no idea who McCraney was (I still really only understand who he is at a 'i-googled-him-and-read-a-paragraph-about-him level) and that my question was completely unrelated to the man. You are free to infer what you will, but this will be my last message concerning how you interpreted my postings.

H.

[WalkerW]

I take this as a personal attack.

As you should. We all know that you are the most prideful, arrogant, insulting, and wretched human being on the face of the earth (possibly in the history of all existence itself) who only thinks he is smacking down opponents (we all known that all you do is dodge incriminating evidence against your position).

On a lighter note, I believe the good doctor's comment was tongue-in-cheek, much like my own.

[Daniel Peterson]

I believe the good doctor's comment was tongue-in-cheek, much like my own.

It was.

Sorry for any confusion.

[frankenstein]

nackhadlow, on 22 February 2011 - 11:45 AM, said:

I think arrogant, prideful, and insult-tossing members of the Church who love smacking down intellectual opponents serve the anti-Mormon purpose far more effectively than those who happen not to believe our Church is true.

sjdawg said: +1. I suspect the truly humble members of the Church get nothing but respect from the majority of those not of the LDS faith.

+1 from me as well. Though, Jesus purposefully and with intent, insulted people, I dare say, none of use here regardless of the fancy titles before or after our names, are entitled to or can guiltlessly treat our fellowman in insulting or degrading ways. What the "arrogant, prideful, and insult-tossing members of the Church" do is give good reason for outsiders to be dissuaded from interest in the Church. They also hurt congregation unity.

[David T]

It was.

Sorry for any confusion.

Gotcha. No problem. I've become accustomed to scraping egg off my face.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I stand corrected. It was 'rivers' who introduced McCraney, not you.

OK, for the last time: I wasn't playing devil's advocate. When I do play devil's advocate, I make it abundantly clear that I am. Second, I underlined a sentence with Shawn McCraney's name in it, but my question was about academic's who make a living doing valid research, and not about 'Shawn McCraney'. Is it possible that your subsequent tirade against Shawn McCraney indicates a that McCraney is a hot-button for you, and that you couldn't see clearly what was being asked?

Look, I don't know how else to convince you that I had no idea who McCraney was (I still really only understand who he is at a 'i-googled-him-and-read-a-paragraph-about-him level) and that my question was completely unrelated to the man. You are free to infer what you will, but this will be my last message concerning how you interpreted my postings.

H.

I understand that you had no idea who Shawn was, I have been saying this for several posts!

All I am saying is that you should know who you are comparing to scholars!

[LDSToronto]

All I am saying is that you should know who you are comparing to scholars!

Ok, I'm breaking my self-imposed ban on posting regarding this mishap, because it really is driving me nuts. For the love of all that is good in this world, please show me specifically how the following statement makes any comparison of 'scholars' to 'anyone in the entire known universe'.

Seriously, this is quite literally driving me mad.

And what about an academic who decides to focus research on the LDS church and it's truth claims, and draws conclusions that are contrary to the claims made by the church? If that person devotes a good portion of their career on such research, is that person then considered an "anti-mormon"?

[ebeddoulos]

Personally, I do not have any problem with recognizing an anti-Mormon or labeling them as such once they are so recognized. If the anti-Mormon does not like the label, they have their agency and are free to exercise it in order to no longer fit the definition.

An

[Calm]

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.

Not sure about all of these for "any other faith" though I believe it's true for Christian faiths. IIRC Jews tend to have highest levels of education, but have not been able to find link quickly to it. I think there is one on religioustolerance.org, but I am about to go to bed and it will have to wait until morning for me to look for it if no one else comes up with it.

*add-on: found this study: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/table-education-by-tradition.pdf

*A quick look shows that Hindus, Orthodox, Buddhists, Unitarians and Jews do have higher rates than LDS for postgraduate degrees.

What is really remarkable imo is where LDS totally buck the trends and that is the correlation of higher activity with higher education. It would be very interesting to see if this correlates with baptism and retention of converts rates as well.

[Obiwan]

I suppose that is true but some of the groupings are very subjective. To say " my friend is a lawyer" is absolute. He completed the schooling and has the proper credentials. Saying someone is "left wing" or "anti-mormon" is much more subjective. We all have our own definitions of what those terms mean that might not be shared or understood by someone else.

I don't agree. Those who are "left wing" or "anti-mormon" have clear behaviors and ideology's they follow, thus they are just as identifiable as a Lawyer is identifiable. The only thing "subjective" would be the person in question, if they actually understand the characteristics that identify those particular groups. For me, I can clearly identify each group, because I'm well learned and experienced with their characteristics.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

-Smac

Occasionally, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and the Church members early in this dispensation are in essence accused of being anti-American because of their opposition to some of the politicians then in power. Yet a reverence for the Constitution of the United States is ingrained in LDS scripture. Such critics fail to draw the distinction you have stated so succinctly here.