Does The Church Have Actual Enemies?

[Stargazer]

We had a joint RS/PH/YM/YW meeting instead of the usual third hour this past Sunday, and the topic was letting the members know about a new media campaign the church is going to be doing next month or so. This will involve billboards, TV ads (some of them 1 minute or longer), and suchlike, all to the purpose of familiarizing nonmembers with LDS people as completely normal folks. The bishopric showed us a few of the long ads, and some of the shorter ones as well. They featured all kinds of people in various occupations having various hobbies, etc.

The reason they did this was to avoid the members getting blindsided when friends and neighbors suddenly started asking questions -- apparently in an area where they test-marketed this ad campaign this happened and it caused a degree of resentment amongst the members. This was resentment directed at church leadership for not giving them some notice. One of our young men was recently returned from his mission in this particular test-market area, and he told us how it went from his perspective. Apparently it worked very well, aside from the initial startlement among the membership.

Here is where my question (above) comes in. In the Q&A after the bishopric's presentation, I raised the point that with Mitt Romney getting to be one of the front runners for the Republican nomination in the upcoming presidential election, some will see this media activity as some kind of stalking horse for Romney, and it would be important that the members be prepared to emphasize that this is the LDS church finally getting off of its "don't answer the critics" stance and stating our own case rather than let "our enemies" state it for us.

The point is, I used the words "our enemies" when saying this, and I got a bit of a reaction to it at the time I said it. The general reaction was that "we" don't have "enemies". There was some chuckling, and the Bishop made sure to soften my language when he restated my point. Speciifically, he replaced "enemies" with "critics". It was all done in a very friendly way, and I recognized that I was temporarily under the impression I was reading or writing in this forum -- otherwise I should have used the word "critic" myself.

ALL THAT BEING SAID, does the church have actual enemies? Is this a fair way to put it? Or should we always soften our language at this?

I daresay that the church kind of sort of thought of the US government as its enemy in the midst of the Utah War. When someone sends an armed force against you perhaps you might be forgiven for reacting this way. But there's no armed force today. So is "enemy" out of bounds in every circumstance? Even given that some of our "critics" can get rather vehement?

[Calm]

I would think that anyone that not only wishes that the Church would cease to exist but actively works against it could be classified as an enemy. That doesn't mean we should treat them with less civility or respect (unless they lost the right through their actions and even then I'd say civility is called for still as well as compassion), but we should be aware of their feelings and actions so we can respond appropriately and protect ourselves and others where needed though most time disengagement is likely enough.

[zerinus]

We had a joint RS/PH/YM/YW meeting instead of the usual third hour this past Sunday, and the topic was letting the members know about a new media campaign the church is going to be doing next month or so. This will involve billboards, TV ads (some of them 1 minute or longer), and suchlike, all to the purpose of familiarizing nonmembers with LDS people as completely normal folks. The bishopric showed us a few of the long ads, and some of the shorter ones as well. They featured all kinds of people in various occupations having various hobbies, etc.

The reason they did this was to avoid the members getting blindsided when friends and neighbors suddenly started asking questions -- apparently in an area where they test-marketed this ad campaign this happened and it caused a degree of resentment amongst the members. This was resentment directed at church leadership for not giving them some notice. One of our young men was recently returned from his mission in this particular test-market area, and he told us how it went from his perspective. Apparently it worked very well, aside from the initial startlement among the membership.

Here is where my question (above) comes in. In the Q&A after the bishopric's presentation, I raised the point that with Mitt Romney getting to be one of the front runners for the Republican nomination in the upcoming presidential election, some will see this media activity as some kind of stalking horse for Romney, and it would be important that the members be prepared to emphasize that this is the LDS church finally getting off of its "don't answer the critics" stance and stating our own case rather than let "our enemies" state it for us.

The point is, I used the words "our enemies" when saying this, and I got a bit of a reaction to it at the time I said it. The general reaction was that "we" don't have "enemies". There was some chuckling, and the Bishop made sure to soften my language when he restated my point. Speciifically, he replaced "enemies" with "critics". It was all done in a very friendly way, and I recognized that I was temporarily under the impression I was reading or writing in this forum -- otherwise I should have used the word "critic" myself.

ALL THAT BEING SAID, does the church have actual enemies? Is this a fair way to put it? Or should we always soften our language at this?

I daresay that the church kind of sort of thought of the US government as its enemy in the midst of the Utah War. When someone sends an armed force against you perhaps you might be forgiven for reacting this way. But there's no armed force today. So is "enemy" out of bounds in every circumstance? Even given that some of our "critics" can get rather vehement?

The Church does have enemies; but the biggest enemies of the Church are not necessarily the ones who shout the loudest against it, like the Evangelicals do. One day these will realize that the game is up, and will stop the fight, or most of them will. The biggest enemies of the Church are the wicked people of the earth; and they are not just the enemies of the Church, but the enemies of all the good people of the earth; and the good people of the earth are much more numerous than just the members of the Church. As the world becomes more and more polarized, the righteous will have to combine their forces for protection against the wicked; and their numbers will be a lot more than the members of the Church. But the Church will play a prominent role in providing them with the protection they require.

[Storm Rider]

I believe the Chuch does have true enemies; however, the true enemies are those who fight against all righteousness, purveyors of evil and darkness. There are among the ranks of critics actual anti-Mormons, but in the long run they do more good than evil for us. Most are so polarized that a logical person dismisses their message immediately and only the ignorant follow after with any degree of committment.

The timing of this type of propaganda is not ideal. It will certainly be interpreted as a outlandish degree of support for LDS politicians at all levels. However, at this point with so many incapable of voting for a LDS under any condition, it is past time to do something.

[CV75]

So is "enemy" out of bounds in every circumstance? Even given that some of our "critics" can get rather vehement?

We love our enemies however they manifest themselves. We love them by actively practicing faith in Christ, hope and charity (pure love of Christ) in all that we do and applying the principles of priesthood power. The manner in which we love is directed by the Holy Ghost according to the need at hand.

I think the term "enemy" can appropriately be used at least on a spiritual level, as in "the enemy of our souls" or "the adversary." I think it can also be used for those who avow themselves as enemies, or seek to destroy the Church, but we should take care in how we identify or judge such individuals, taking the high road. At this level, the priesthood leadership should lead any charge.

[Saints Alive]

I'd say our biggest enemies come from within.

[Questing Beast]

The Church does have enemies; but the biggest enemies of the Church are not necessarily the ones who shout the loudest against it, like the Evangelicals do. One day these will realize that the game is up, and will stop the fight, or most of them will. The biggest enemies of the Church are the wicked people of the earth; and they are not just the enemies of the Church, but the enemies of all the good people of the earth; and the good people of the earth are much more numerous than just the members of the Church. As the world becomes more and more polarized, the righteous will have to combine their forces for protection against the wicked; and their numbers will be a lot more than the members of the Church. But the Church will play a prominent role in providing them with the protection they require.

I used to see the world through this apocalyptic lens too. But taking a long, ongoing look at the world via the media (what other way is there, other than to travel the entire world looking yourself?), I have to say that the world does not "polarize"; now or at any other time. The world has always been made up of normal people. A few nutjobs exist, and occasionally they get into power and cause a ruckus. But there is never any polarization of a campaign against "the good people of the earth". The concept of organized baddies is fallacious because baddies don't cooperate well; they are too selfish and cowardly. A few exceptions do not negate the rule: that "bad" people are selfish people and cowardly people. Their very nature makes any massive cooperation impossible.

I see the world as improving steadily; as opportunity to advance oneself spreads into "developing nations", their people join with the "West" in prosperity and liberty, etc. These advantages and advancements mean that the world will get better, not worse. I believe that the evidence for this radically opposite (from the apocalyptic) view is very prevalent. Only a religious world view denies the evidence. I know, because for years I too believed that the world of the BofM was mirrored in the world of today as a whole: that the "righteous and wicked" were separating into the two prophesied camps that would become openly at war with each other (like Gadiantons and the law-abiding citizenry). But the world is not made that way.

So to answer the OP question: no, the Church does not have organized enemies. There are some loud voices decrying the liberty of religious people to insert their religious beliefs into public school curricula. And some few of these not-numerous religion haters are demagogs, who openly hate religion enough to advocate for laws proscribing public expressions of religious beliefs: deeming them to be superstition and inimical to education, etc. But even these people who hate religion don't advocate for eradication; just prohibition in polite company of the discussion of religion. Such bigots would eliminate free speech altogether except for themselves. That does not make them enemies of the Mormon religion directly. They hate all religions. But again, such bigotry is both rare and fragmented along lines of differing self-interests....

[KevinG]

I'm an unemployed businessman trying desperately to find a job so I can support my 7 children and wife. My garage is full of canned goods. I spend every Sunday in 3 hours of church (even though I'm a closet football fan). I only own one car but it is a 15 passenger van. I baptise dead people.

...and I'm a Mormon.

(Do you think they would make a commerical out of me?)

[Calm]

I'm an unemployed businessman trying desperately to find a job so I can support my 7 children and wife. My garage is full of canned goods. I spend every Sunday in 3 hours of church (even though I'm a closet football fan). I only own one car but it is a 15 passenger van. I baptise dead people.

...and I'm a Mormon.

(Do you think they would make a commerical out of me?)

I would.

[KevinG]

I would.

[zerinus]

I used to see the world through this apocalyptic lens too. But taking a long, ongoing look at the world via the media (what other way is there, other than to travel the entire world looking yourself?), I have to say that the world does not "polarize"; now or at any other time. The world has always been made up of normal people. A few nutjobs exist, and occasionally they get into power and cause a ruckus. But there is never any polarization of a campaign against "the good people of the earth". The concept of organized baddies is fallacious because baddies don't cooperate well; they are too selfish and cowardly. A few exceptions do not negate the rule: that "bad" people are selfish people and cowardly people. Their very nature makes any massive cooperation impossible.

I see the world as improving steadily; as opportunity to advance oneself spreads into "developing nations", their people join with the "West" in prosperity and liberty, etc. These advantages and advancements mean that the world will get better, not worse. I believe that the evidence for this radically opposite (from the apocalyptic) view is very prevalent. Only a religious world view denies the evidence. I know, because for years I too believed that the world of the BofM was mirrored in the world of today as a whole: that the "righteous and wicked" were separating into the two prophesied camps that would become openly at war with each other (like Gadiantons and the law-abiding citizenry). But the world is not made that way.

So to answer the OP question: no, the Church does not have organized enemies. There are some loud voices decrying the liberty of religious people to insert their religious beliefs into public school curricula. And some few of these not-numerous religion haters are demagogs, who openly hate religion enough to advocate for laws proscribing public expressions of religious beliefs: deeming them to be superstition and inimical to education, etc. But even these people who hate religion don't advocate for eradication; just prohibition in polite company of the discussion of religion. Such bigots would eliminate free speech altogether except for themselves. That does not make them enemies of the Mormon religion directly. They hate all religions. But again, such bigotry is both rare and fragmented along lines of differing self-interests....

Polarizations have taken place at various stages in the history of the world, sometimes on a national scale, and sometimes on an international scale. There were several polarizations in the Book of Mormon, the final one leading to the annihilation of one of the groups. Various polarizations have also been predicted for the future, one example being D&C 45:66-70. Another example is 2 Nephi 30:10, just before the Second Coming.

[Bernard Gui]

I'm an unemployed businessman trying desperately to find a job so I can support my 7 children and wife. My garage is full of canned goods. I spend every Sunday in 3 hours of church (even though I'm a closet football fan). I only own one car but it is a 15 passenger van. I baptise dead people.

...and I'm a Mormon.

(Do you think they would make a commerical out of me?)

Baptize dead people?

Bernard

[The Nehor]

ALL THAT BEING SAID, does the church have actual enemies?

Yes.

[annewandering]

The Church has one very real enemy and he has a lot of followers. We know him as Satan. He teaches his followers many ways to seek converts and deceive the Children of God. Are they organized? I believe that Satan is quite organized and he has a detailed plan. Look around the internet and you can see many of his tentacles reaching into so much of current thought. Try facebook if you doubt it. I use facebook quite a lot. Its educational like you wouldnt believe.

[Avatar4321]

Of course we have enemies.

[Zakuska]

A few examples:

Ed Decker

The Tanners

[Verum]

The natural man is an enemy to the church...

[altersteve]

Organizations like CARM and MRM would be considered enemies as well.

[why me]

ALL THAT BEING SAID, does the church have actual enemies? Is this a fair way to put it? Or should we always soften our language at this?

Yes, it does have enemies. It has had enemies since its very inception. True, no one is burning down mormon homes and driving them out of town but the enemies are still there. We can see this on the internet in other forums. If the church fell apart today, many would celebrate its downfall. Also, there are many websites dedicated in getting people to leave the church or to have nothing to do with the church. I would call these sites enemies because they wish to harm the church. They are certainly not friends. The internet boards dedicated to the lds church are engaged in silent warfare for the hearts and minds of members and those interested in the lds church. But the war is different from the early and middle 19th century.

Edited September 28, 2011 by why me

[why me]

The natural man is an enemy to the church...

Maybe but maybe not. The natural man also has very good qualities derived from its human nature. The natural man can be kind, polite, empathetic, caring, cooperative and just. But the natural man can also be the opposite. It depends on what the natural man wishes to draw out of his or her human nature.

[Sky]

The Church most certainly does have enemies. And in many cases the most passionate ones tend to be those who were once believers but who have since left the faith. They are not hard to find on the internet.

I also frequently read LDS related articles on the Salt Lake Tribune website, and the comments that people post are often very abrasive and have nothing good to say about the LDS faith or its people.

There are also people from within the faith who oppose certain Church doctrines or who support certain causes that the Church doesn’t support. I don’t necessarily view all of these as ‘enemies,’ but I do think they are flirting with it.

This issue goes way beyond the Ed Decker’s and the Tanner’s of the world.

[Verum]

Maybe but maybe not. The natural man also has very good qualities derived from its human nature. The natural man can be kind, polite, empathetic, caring, cooperative and just. But the natural man can also be the opposite. It depends on what the natural man wishes to draw out of his or her human nature.

Whyme.... I was actually quoting Mosiah 3:19 somewhat facetiously which says that the "natural man is an enemy to God". You do bring up a good point though.

[AddamS]

Any individual or group of individuals that identify themselves in a manner that separates them from society en masse will eventually accrue some enemies, it's human nature.

The LDS church is no exception.

[Maidservant]

A few examples:

Ed Decker

The Tanners

Organizations like CARM and MRM would be considered enemies as well.

I simply don't agree on this.

*************

The question of an enemy is an interesting one. Is an enemy an enemy from the point of view of us? Or an enemy from the point of them TO us?

I think that from the point of view of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, no one is an enemy except the Adversary and all that he would do. But that covers a lot of ground, and even covers the sins we might have that we still need to repent of. And in the end, we are to pray for our enemies and do good to them and turn the other check and forgive a lot of times and not go out to war until the fourth time (etc). Not that one doesn't stand up for oneself, it is also important to do that, that also helps the 'enemy' to not be as big a sinner, if he can't put into effect the plans in his heart if we become stronger to stop him.

From the point of view of others, there are probably many individuals and groups who might call us an enemy, for their various reasons, feeling threatened by what we are and/or what they think we are.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Maidservant

[Zakuska]

We need to add another one to the List...

Shawn McCraney