Internet Anti-Mormonism

[Calm]

I don't look at the Trib's "Reader Comments" very often; I can't bear the stench. But does anyone here know if the same level of bigotry, vitriol and falsehood is directed toward blacks, Jews, Hispanics, etc.? I wonder if such posts would even be permitted on the site.

I can't say about the Tribune, but there are certainly other venues which focus their attacks on each of those groups.

It is understandable that since we are LDS we encounter more bigotry towards LDS than other groups, but I have heard the same thing from many different individuals (that they encounter more bigotry for the group they belong to than others) so I am reluctant to draw any conclusions. Would very much like to see a study done comparing incidents of bigotry taking into consideration the size of the group and how often personal encounters occur (as actual interaction may justify bigotry in some people's mind).

[Pahoran]

Moral bankrupt? No need to get personal.

Actually he wasn't speaking to you, Jaybear.

But I can understand why you might assume that he was.

Regards,

Pahoran

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel Peterson:

I don't believe Muslims are anymore related to terrorism than any other religion. Considering that there are over a Billion Muslims they seem even less prone to terrorism than some Christians. But I don't know enough about the Muslim religion to say one way or the other. Hot heads seem to exist in all groups.

According to the Nurenburg Principles, Geneva Conventions, and US law it makes no difference if someone is in uniformed military service or not. Even George Washington said that it brings the cause of the Revolution into disrepute.It also puts our own soldiers at risk for such tactics when they are captured. Further "Enhanced Interrogation" IE; Waterboarding has been classified as torture since at least the Spanish Inquisition. We hung lawyers who codified torture after WW2. I see no reason to exclude Gay Bybee just because he is a Mormon.

If we are not willing to air our own dirty linens, then others with less good intentions will do it for us. Personally I'd rather control the debate than have our critics do it.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Minos
SometimesSaint has left the building

[Jaybear]

While I can see why you might be confused Jaybear, you might try re-reading the sentence in question,

He called the attacks morally bankrupt, but made no judgement against those repeating them.

The point is the same, no matter how awkward the wording.

On the contrary, you and your friends have attempted precisely that.

Whether under the rubric of "well, if the Momons had it coming", or "Hey, everybody does it". or even "Hey, quite complaining, it's no big deal"- you and your fellow travellers have labored long and hard to excuse, justify, and perhaps even ratify the myriad abuses heaped on the Mormon online.

Nope. No one said "Mormons had it coming." You are seeing things that just aren't there. Just as many here see criticism of Smith or the LDS Church, as a personal attack.

At this point in this particularly tired waltz (yes, we've danced this dance before), your customary (indeed, expected and anticipated) retort is to comment off-handedly about the Mormon "persecution complex" and then then suggest that we should be grateful that things aren't worse.

"Mormon persecution complex" Interesting term. Do people often say that Mormons suffer from a persecution complex? Interesting theory indeed. I wonder where they got that idea from.

I mean, after all, tarring and feathering are things of the past, and torch-lit mobs ripping men from their homes in the middle of the night is just soooo last-century.

Actually, those things happened two centuries ago. You do a great disservice to your pioneer heritage when you compare rude comments in a public forum, to actually persecution.

They way you people go on about what is on the trib message board, one can only imagine hard hard it must be to be a Mormon living in Utah.

In future, you Quite lecturing, Jaybear. That's a mirror, not a window.

Huh?

[KevinG]

You bring up some good points which are important to address. When does the church become so engaged in LDS activities that there is simply no time left to engage the world WITH the larger Christian community? Or rather, when does the need to compete with the other Christian denominiations over converts cease when we being seeing ourselves as an extended family of believers?

Just some things to consider: While I do not know all that the LDS church is involved in, does the church fund ministries like homeless shelters, give money for disaster relief, or participate with other denominations for community betterment? The church may in fact do these things, but for some reason it still carries the label of being separated from these things. As example, I have extensive experience in community activities, yet the LDS membership have been noticably absent in these efforts. In smaller communities, everyone knows where most people attend and who (and who is not) involved. They have been noticeably absent from events like the Mayors Prayer Breakfast as well as the local communities Ministerial Alliance (of course I am only speaking from experinence in my community).

I only offer this as example from a "marketing perspective." Of course, some will say (and rightly so) that the other denominations will refuse to work with you. But I have also found that once someone gets to know you, many of the fears and prejudices will vanish when they get to know the people of the LDS. Just my thoughts offered in all kindness...

Not that it is an excuse but the dark side of a comprehensive, involved, lifestyle like Mormonism is that it leaves very little time for other hobbies and activities. Especially during those years when the kids are going from activity to activity at school and church. This is more of an overuse of a strength than it is a true weakness.

LDS involvement in ecumenical activities is very good at the international and national level. We often cooperate with other groups on humanitarian efforts, political movements of interest, community improvements and the like. On the local level our intermingling with our neighbors depends a lot on the quality of our volunteer leadership, activity in Scouts and outreach to schools... Even there we are sometimes criticized or un-invited because of our affiliations of beliefs.

Given the volunteer nature of our local authority it is sometimes difficult for outsiders to know who to contact/invite to civic events to represent the Church.

The biggest opportunity I can see is for individual members to choose to serve in volunteer positions outside the Church callings. This can be a huge burden however. I have done the booster President, volunteer clinician (coach), and parent club thing. Its not easy on top of job, church callings, kids activities, etc. When I can combine them (Parent booster for choir or band) it is best.

The other biggest opportunity is to show up at community events. Even if alcohol is served of the entertainment isn't exactly to our liking, it sometimes helps to circulate among our friends and quietly show them we may not be drinking, but we're lots of fun to be around.

In other words things like the financials or sacred rites of the church being private aren't nearly as much of a big deal as getting to know our non-Mormon friends and neighbors. My Mormon friend took time for me with no pressure to convert or be like him and I ended up joining his religion partly because of his great example as a friend!

Edited December 6, 2011 by DaddyG

[KevinG]

I find it easier to be a Mormon in Georgia than I did in Utah. People who want to complain about something in Utah use the LDS Church as a handy scapegoat.

[Thunderfire]

In other words things like the financials or sacred rites of the church being private aren't nearly as much of a big deal as getting to know our non-Mormon friends and neighbors. My Mormon friend took time for me with no pressure to convert or be like him and I ended up joining his religion partly because of his great example as a friend!

I agree completely with what you are saying. We destroy our enemies by making them our friends.

[Craig Paxton]

Why do some people have to be down-right mean and nasty on the internet when it comes to the LDS faith? Why is our faith the target of so much satire? Why is this generally accepted? Nearly every LDS related article is followed by anonymous reader comments that reflect a prejudice and even hatred towards Mormonism. I’ve read all sorts of awful things. And yet we Mormons are the ones that get accused of being intolerant. I’ve seen it time and time again. It seems to be especially prevalent right now because of Mitt Romney’s candidacy. The Salt Lake Tribune is a prime example. Genuine disagreements are one thing, but when does it cross the line into bigotry? What should our responses be towards this kind of thing? Is it even worth it to try and give a response? Do you think the Mormon.org profiles have hurt or helped with this? Do outsiders really better understand us and our faith? Or has it stayed about the same?

Thoughts?

Why do some people have to be down-right mean and nasty on the internet when it comes to apostate Mormon's? Why are Mormon apostates the target of so much satire? Why is this generally accepted? Nearly every anti-apostate related article is followed by anonymousLDS reader comments that reflect a prejudice and even hatred towards LDS Apostates. I’ve read all sorts of awful things. And yet we apostates are the ones that get accused of being intolerant. I’ve seen it time and time again. It seems to be especially prevalent right now because of Mitt Romney’s candidacy. The Deseret News is a prime example. Genuine disagreements are one thing, but when does it cross the line into bigotry? What should our responses be towards this kind of thing? Is it even worth it to try and give a response? Do you think the I'm-an-ex-Mormon.org (not a real sight) profiles have hurt or helped with this? Do active Mormon's really better understand apostates and our lack of faith? Or has it stayed about the same?

Thoughts?

My thought is show some courtesy and start your own thread if you want to talk about that.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Minos

[Pahoran]

Why do some people have to be down-right mean and nasty on the internet when it comes to apostate Mormon's?

For example?

Why are Mormon apostates the target of so much satire?

You mean like your post is a satire of the OP, or are you talking about something else? If so, what?

Why is this generally accepted?

Is it "generally accepted" so that it needs explanation?

Nearly every anti-apostate related article

Where?

is followed by anonymousLDS reader comments that reflect a prejudice and even hatred towards LDS Apostates. I've read all sorts of awful things. And yet we apostates are the ones that get accused of being intolerant. I've seen it time and time again. It seems to be especially prevalent right now because of Mitt Romney's candidacy. The Deseret News is a prime example. Genuine disagreements are one thing, but when does it cross the line into bigotry? What should our responses be towards this kind of thing? Is it even worth it to try and give a response? Do you think the I'm-an-ex-Mormon.org (not a real sight) profiles have hurt or helped with this? Do active Mormon's really better understand apostates and our lack of faith? Or has it stayed about the same?

Thoughts?

Well, do you have any?

Or are you simply playing a word substitution game?

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited December 7, 2011 by Pahoran

[Sky]

Nope. No one said "Mormons had it coming." You are seeing things that just aren't there. Just as many here see criticism of Smith or the LDS Church, as a personal attack.

But the way you word your posts, your attitude comes across as "Mormons bring it on themselves and it's really no big deal anyway." Selek isn't the only one that sees it.

"Mormon persecution complex" Interesting term. Do people often say that Mormons suffer from a persecution complex? Interesting theory indeed. I wonder where they got that idea from.

Having a “persecution complex” is something that ex-Mormons and anti-Mormons are quite fond of accusing the Mormons of having. I think they do it in part because it comes in handy for them when a Mormon actually calls them out on their bluff.

You do a great disservice to your pioneer heritage when you compare rude comments in a public forum, to actually persecution.

Nice little back-handed reference to our pioneer heritage.

Persecution can take different forms. While Mormons aren’t chased from their homes or physically harassed today (most of the time), the attacks are largely verbal and psychological. That is still very real. Would you rather I not point this out at all and let the attacks continue without impunity?

They way you people go on about what is on the trib message board, one can only imagine hard hard it must be to be a Mormon living in Utah.

In other words, it's all the Mormons fault. They bring it on themselves.

And by the way, “you people...” doesn’t exactly do much to help your argument or to promote civil dialogue.

[frankenstein]

Why do some people have to be down-right mean and nasty on the internet when it comes to apostate Mormon's? Why are Mormon apostates the target of so much satire? Why is this generally accepted? Nearly every anti-apostate related article is followed by anonymousLDS reader comments that reflect a prejudice and even hatred towards LDS Apostates. I’ve read all sorts of awful things. And yet we apostates are the ones that get accused of being intolerant. I’ve seen it time and time again. It seems to be especially prevalent right now because of Mitt Romney’s candidacy. The Deseret News is a prime example. Genuine disagreements are one thing, but when does it cross the line into bigotry? What should our responses be towards this kind of thing? Is it even worth it to try and give a response? Do you think the I'm-an-ex-Mormon.org (not a real sight) profiles have hurt or helped with this? Do active Mormon's really better understand apostates and our lack of faith? Or has it stayed about the same?

Thoughts?

LOL....That is exactly what I was thinking. But those who claim to follow Christ are to mote from anothers eye.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Minos
All noise, please leave the building.

[Minos]

Tone it down.

[Sky]

Why do some people have to be down-right mean and nasty on the internet when it comes to apostate Mormon's? Why are Mormon apostates the target of so much satire? Why is this generally accepted? Nearly every anti-apostate related article is followed by anonymousLDS reader comments that reflect a prejudice and even hatred towards LDS Apostates. I’ve read all sorts of awful things. And yet we apostates are the ones that get accused of being intolerant. I’ve seen it time and time again. It seems to be especially prevalent right now because of Mitt Romney’s candidacy. The Deseret News is a prime example. Genuine disagreements are one thing, but when does it cross the line into bigotry? What should our responses be towards this kind of thing? Is it even worth it to try and give a response? Do you think the I'm-an-ex-Mormon.org (not a real sight) profiles have hurt or helped with this? Do active Mormon's really better understand apostates and our lack of faith? Or has it stayed about the same?

Thoughts?

If you can show me that Mormon detractors are the targets of as much online nastiness as the Mormons are, then I will grant that you might be on to something. But I think you will be hard pressed to do that.

[Craig Paxton]

For example?

You mean like your post is a satire of the OP, or are you talking about something else? If so, what?

Is it "generally accepted" so that it needs explanation?

Where?

Well, do you have any?

Or are you simply playing a word substitution game?

Regards,

Pahoran

Ahhh...good to be back...what would a post by me be without a reply by my good friend Pahoran. But seriously...can't we all just get along and back up alittle with some prespective? Apostates aren't all evil and LDS apologist aren't all good and play nice. These sterotypes ae just that sterotypes...and are not based in reality.

Truth is ... there is good and bad on both sides of the issue...somehow all of us need to find a middle way...a way to build bridges of understanding...at least that is my hope.

[Jaybear]

But the way you word your posts, your attitude comes across as "Mormons bring it on themselves and it's really no big deal anyway." Selek isn't the only one that sees it.

So Selek is not the only one that reads things into posts that aren't there. Not news to me.

Having a “persecution complex” is something that ex-Mormons and anti-Mormons are quite fond of accusing the Mormons of having. I think they do it in part because it comes in handy for them when a Mormon actually calls them out on their bluff.

Actually, I assume that they do so because they believe that its true.

Nice little back-handed reference to our pioneer heritage.

Persecution can take different forms. While Mormons aren’t chased from their homes or physically harassed today (most of the time), the attacks are largely verbal and psychological. That is still very real. Would you rather I not point this out at all and let the attacks continue without impunity?

I got it. You think Mormons are really really persecuted.

You are, of course, welcome to point it out as often and as loud as you please.

In other words, it's all the Mormons fault. They bring it on themselves.

"In other words" ... code for let me put words in your mouth, so that I can be offended by what you didn't actually say.

And by the way, “you people...” doesn’t exactly do much to help your argument or to promote civil dialogue.

You people" is a poor choice of words. But if it helps I was not referring to "mormons" generally. I was referring to people like you are quick to find reason to take offense, where none is intended.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Minos
Jaybear has left the building

[Sky]

So Selek is not the only one that reads things into posts that aren't there. Not news to me.

Actually, I assume that they do so because they believe that its true.

I got it. You think Mormons are really really persecuted.

You are, of course, welcome to point it out as often and as loud as you please.

"In other words" ... code for let me put words in your mouth, so that I can be offended by what you didn't actually say.

You people" is a poor choice of words. But if it helps I was not referring to "mormons" generally. I was referring to people like you are quick to find reason to take offense, where none is intended.

You seem to have issues with the mere mention that Mormons are mistreated on the internet, as well as when a Mormon such as myself actually attempts to confront it and defend their religion. And based on what I’ve seen of your posting history, I can’t recall you ever defending any believing Mormon for any reason. I could be wrong. Maybe I’m just reading into something that isn’t there. Fine. But I’m not going to keep going in circles with you, Jaybear.

[KevinG]

Craig - I would never condone mistreating someone who left the LDS Church. I do sopmetimes give "snark in kind" to those who leave and are obnoxious to faithful members.

Most incidents I know of first hand where someone is labeled an apostate and mistreated for their beliefs happen in already dysfunctional families. In many of those cases I think the apostasy is a result of hearing but not being able to experience "a family here on earth that are so good to me". Not a unique LDS problem but one we should know better to avoid.

Other places (in particular on line) some seem to revel in their apostate status and like to stick it to the Mormon sheeple every chance they get.

You may find the responses you get from others are a great barometer of how you yourself act.

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't believe Muslims are anymore related to terrorism than any other religion.

I wish that were true. I'm profoundly sympathetic to Islam (as I think my career has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt). Unfortunately, I can't see any possible way to bring myself to believe that there is no special link, over the past three or four decades, between Islam and terrorism.

According to the Nurenburg Principles, Geneva Conventions, and US law it makes no difference if someone is in uniformed military service or not.

I don't believe that, either. But this board isn't the place to discuss it.

.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Daniel Peterson

[Scott Lloyd]

I can't say about the Tribune, but there are certainly other venues which focus their attacks on each of those groups.

It is understandable that since we are LDS we encounter more bigotry towards LDS than other groups, but I have heard the same thing from many different individuals (that they encounter more bigotry for the group they belong to than others) so I am reluctant to draw any conclusions. Would very much like to see a study done comparing incidents of bigotry taking into consideration the size of the group and how often personal encounters occur (as actual interaction may justify bigotry in some people's mind).

I agree that, sad to say, there is still plenty of bigotry in society to go around.

What I was getting at is that the Tribune, deserving or not, enjoys a certain degree of respect in this community, this while publishing on its "reader comment" boards a high and constant volume of uncivil sniping against Mormons and the Church of Jesus Christ. This strikes me as corporate irresponsibility, and I'm wondering aloud whether they would get away with such laxness with regard to other groups, ethnic, minority or even religious. To me, it goes to a broader acceptance in the societal mainstream of hostility against Mormonism where similar hostility to other groups might not be so accepted.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Ahhh...good to be back...what would a post by me be without a reply by my good friend Pahoran. But seriously...can't we all just get along and back up alittle with some prespective? Apostates aren't all evil and LDS apologist aren't all good and play nice. These sterotypes ae just that sterotypes...and are not based in reality.

Truth is ... there is good and bad on both sides of the issue...somehow all of us need to find a middle way...a way to build bridges of understanding...at least that is my hope.

I agree with Pahoran's point, which is that your word-substitution game doesn't work, because Mormon apostates are not the subject of incessant public attack as Mormons and the Church of Jesus Christ are. I would go so far as to say that, as it pertains to public censure, said apostates are pretty much left alone these days unless and until they become strident antagonists against the Church.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

Back to the original post, I believe it is absurd to argue that the Internet is the cause of virulent anti-Mormonism, anymore than to say that the printing press is responsible for Hustler magazine.

What makes the internet so unique, and here I am beating my drum once again, is that it attracts the anonymous poster. I continue to believe that anonymity is not an appropriate vehicle to either defend or attack the Church.

As to Lloyd's comments about the Tribune, forgive me for sticking up for free speech. The Trib would be roundly condemned for editing posts on the basis of content like an attack upon the dominant religion. Sure, libel and personal attacks are appropriate for editing, but not attacks on Mormons, Jews, Catholics and the like.

On the other hand, I applaud KSL's and the Deseret News' apparent policy of prohibiting anonymous comments, at least as was reported in a recent FR article quoting Mark Willis. That is not a content-related edit.

[Scott Lloyd]

Back to the original post, I believe it is absurd to argue that the Internet is the cause of virulent anti-Mormonism, anymore than to say that the printing press is responsible for Hustler magazine.

I just re-read Sky's original post. I don't read it as saying that "the Internet is the cause of virulent anti-Mormonism," and I wonder how you got that from his words.

What makes the internet so unique, and here I am beating my drum once again, is that it attracts the anonymous poster. I continue to believe that anonymity is not an appropriate vehicle to either defend or attack the Church.

I agree. Which is why I applaud you for posting with your real name but wonder why you at times past have chosen to use a screen name.

As to Lloyd's comments about the Tribune, forgive me for sticking up for free speech.

I'm not attacking free speech. In a democratic society, anyone is allowed unhindered to publish his own communications; I'm OK with that. But free speech does not mean that I or anyone else is obliged to publish someone else's hate speech, whether it be in a newspaper, over a broadcasting station or on an Internet board such as this one. The same libertarian ethic that allows you to express your views in public prevents you from requiring someone else to carry them.

The Trib would be roundly condemned for editing posts on the basis of content like an attack upon the dominant religion.

That's not what I'm advocating.

Sure, libel and personal attacks are appropriate for editing, but not attacks on Mormons, Jews, Catholics and the like.

Are you suggesting that, while it's not OK to libel individuals, it is OK to libel groups? Such a stance strikes me as untenable. A personal libelous attack potentially damages the reputation of a single individual; a libelous attack on a group potentially damages the reputation of multiple individuals.

On the other hand, I applaud KSL's and the Deseret News' apparent policy of prohibiting anonymous comments, at least as was reported in a recent FR article quoting Mark Willis. That is not a content-related edit.

In line with corporate, values-based policy, both KSL and the Deseret News do filter out uncivil remarks from their comment boards. This does not mean they prohibit responsible criticism, nor does it infringe on anyone's "free speech" rights. See above. The hate-mongers are free to find some other venue or to create their own, if they so choose.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Sky]

What makes the internet so unique, and here I am beating my drum once again, is that it attracts the anonymous poster. I continue to believe that anonymity is not an appropriate vehicle to either defend or attack the Church.

Well, I defend the Church anonymously. Maybe someday I will work up the courage to defend it using my real name. But there are also some risks that go along with that. As an extreme example, look at what Daniel Peterson gets subjected to. I’m also an amateur apologist. It is a passion of mine. I think I know quite a bit, but by no means do I consider myself an expert. If the discussion is about the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, you can count me out. Regardless, my hat goes off to anybody who uses their real name.

I actually have on occasion used my real name through letters to the editor to the Deseret News and Sunstone. I even used part of my real name on the Salt Lake Tribune reader comments section! I also have a profile on mormon.org.

The rule of thumb that I try to live by is not to post something that I wouldn’t say to somebody in person. Sometimes I am more successful at it than other times, especially when somebody posts something that I passionately disagree with. But what you see of my posts is exactly how I feel. If you were to meet me in person, I don’t think you’d find my personality to be that far off from my posting style. I don’t try to be somebody online that I’m not in real life.

Anyway, take this for what it’s worth. Have a nice day!

[Daniel Peterson]

There are still plenty of critics posting on the Deseret News site.

They routinely criticize my weekly columns, for example. But the newspaper doesn't seem to allow them to call me by insulting nicknames and other such staples of contemporary internet discourse. Which seems to me (a) no serious loss, (b) well within the rights of the newspaper's management, and © not even slightly opposed to the rights of free speech enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

[Bob Crockett]

I just re-read Sky's original post. I don't read it as saying that "the Internet is the cause of virulent anti-Mormonism," and I wonder how you got that from his words.

I guess it is in the interpretation. But I think there is virulent anti-Mormonism on the internet nonetheless.

I agree. Which is why I applaud you for posting with your real name but wonder why you at times past have chosen to use a screen name.

I have never, and there are no exceptions except in one or two isolated instances a very long time ago, and only once or twice, posted without using my own name. Ever. If I use a screen name, like "Yahoo Bot," either my personal data or my signature contains a link to my personal identification. As on this board, my personal data identifies exactly whom I might be.

I'm not attacking free speech. In a democratic society, anyone is allowed unhindered to publish his own communications; I'm OK with that. But free speech does not mean that I or anyone else is obliged to publish someone else's hate speech, whether it be in a newspaper, over a broadcasting station or on an Internet board such as this one. The same libertarian ethic that allows you to express your views in public prevents you from requiring someone else to carry them.

And I'm not saying that a web host must do that. If I want to set up a website discussing coin collecting, I have no obligation to permit discussion about stamp collecting. And this board strives, it looks like to me, to accomplish its objectives in a fair manner.

But a newspaper is perceived of as being a somewhat different animal. In order for it to be credible, generally speaking, it is required by societal norms to permit alternate voices to have their say. Sure, it can be like the Deseret News and squelch anti-Church diatribe, but it sacrifices its reputation for independence. I'm not saying the DN is wrong in doing that by any means. But the DN has chosen to be what it is, and the Salt Lake Tribune has chosen to be what it is, a mainstream paper.

Are you suggesting that, while it's not OK to libel individuals, it is OK to libel groups? Such a stance strikes me as untenable. A personal libelous attack potentially damages the reputation of a single individual; a libelous attack on a group potentially damages the reputation of multiple individuals.

What do you mean by OK? I don't think it "OK" to view or produce porn, but I don't think it OK to censor it, otherwise you're looking at censoring other kinds of offensive speech, perhaps to the point of prohibiting Mormon Elders from going door to door -- something several cities have attempted.

And you can't "libel" Mormons in general, from a legal perspective. Is it "OK' to say false and malicious things about the Church? I revert to my comment about porn.

Edited December 8, 2011 by rcrocket