Mormonism Under Attack?

[Sky]

It seems to me that the LDS Church just can't win in the eyes of certain people, and apparently I'm not the only one who is noticing.

The list is long...but what is currently on my mind is how the Church gets attacked for having a racist past, but on the other hand gets accused of only caring about its PR image when it distances itself from that past. Well, what exactly is the Church supposed to do? It's obvious that the Church is in a no-win situation with certain people.

I happen to love the LDS Church and think there is lots and lots to admire about it. Any weaknesses that it may have are far outweighed by its strengths. The critics have had a great time in offering up loads of mocking criticism, but have completely failed to offer anything better.

The old saying that "they can leave the Church but they can't leave it alone" has proven itself to be true over and over and over again.

Here's a wish for better days ahead for Mormonism!

[silvermoon383]

"BYU’s “Blackface” viral video"? Do I want to know?

[mbh26]

The LDS Church is in the business of converting everyone. It's hard to please everyone.

[Storm Rider]

Since the first days of the Restoration there has been persecution. I am not sure if anything that is happening today is more onerous, but persecution will always exist for those who stand for righteousness and truth. It will not get "better", but will continue unabated. It really does not matter what happens to us, rather how we react to what happens is of vital importance. We can rejoice even as our lives are taken; this that we bear today is but little when compared to what has occurred in the past and what will be demanded of us in the future.

[selek1]

The LDS Church is in the business of converting everyone. It's hard to please everyone.

Incorrect.

The Church is in the business of sharing the Gospel with everyone.

Only the Spirit of God converts.

Other spirits, quite obviously, have different goals.

[too hyooge]

Banned!

[nitrobrah]

Also banned.

[Xander]

Incorrect.

The Church is in the business of sharing the Gospel with everyone.

Only the Spirit of God converts.

Other spirits, quite obviously, have different goals.

Your question begging, aside, the church isn't content to just "share" things. They pressure. Ask a number of people who can't seem to get the home teachers to stop visiting them. When I was on my mission we were told to commit the person to baptism after only two of six discussions. Last week the sister missionaries came over and explained to us that now they are expected to commit them to baptism after the first "visit"; apparently the Church has decided to rid the mission field of the numbered "discussions."

Traditionally the missionary conversion effort relied on a very sophisticated system that was carefully developed by professionals from the psychologists employed by the Church. Missionaries would cover just the basic stuff during the first two discussions. Things like the atonement and the restoration. But after getting the person to commit to baptism, they come back to teach the tougher doctrines of the Church, such as tithing, law of chastity, word of wisdom, temple worthiness, etc. If that person decided to back out of the baptismal commitment, then the Elders would naturally remind him/her that he/she has already made a commitment and they use the usual testimony bearing tactics in an effort of trying to prove to that person that God is the one who wants him/her to get baptized.

So saying the Church only "shared" something and then moves along, is ridiculous. That would me more along the lines of what the Jehovah's witnesses do. They've given me their pamphlets on a number of occasions and then left it up to me to contact them if I was interested.

[Xander]

The list is long...but what is currently on my mind is how the Church gets attacked for having a racist past

Well, isn't that understandable? Politicians with any past affiliation with say, the KKK, are rightly discredited just the same.

but on the other hand gets accused of only caring about its PR image when it distances itself from that past.

Well, it is a corporation. Like any good corporation, it has its own public relations department which is constantly seeking newer ways to improve its image.

Well, what exactly is the Church supposed to do? It's obvious that the Church is in a no-win situation with certain people.

I will admit it is in a very tough spot. However, blaming the critics is the wrong way to go about it. The only people to blame for the Church's unfortunate position are those past LDS Apostles and Prophets who propagated these racists teachings for more than a century. None of the anti-Mormons made them teach these things. They taught them because they were racists. The fact that the Church has changed in accordance with society's expectations, especially in the tolerance dept (albeit at a much slower pace- i.e. LDS criticisms of the Civil Rights movement), doesn't really resolve the problem or the fact that the Church is essentially contradicting itself when it now claims that no one never knew why the rule was implemented, as if revelation had nothing to do with it.

The Church taught that it was a commandment from God, which is just as good as revelation.

I happen to love the LDS Church and think there is lots and lots to admire about it. Any weaknesses that it may have are far outweighed by its strengths.

But those unwilling to face or admit those weaknesses are not in a very good position to make that judgment call. I admit that the church does a lot of good, but so do other Churches. The problem is that while the LDS Church is essentially just like any other Church, it doesn't claim to be like any other Church. It claims to be God's one true Church. It claims to have more truth and it claims only it has the authority to act in God's name. As such, we would expect the LDS Church to take a leading role in guiding society into a more tolerant state. Instead ,we see just the oppoisite. That "apostate" society forcing its will on God's Church, shaping that once in a generation "revelation" that has any positive effect on Church policy.

The critics have had a great time in offering up loads of mocking criticism, but have completely failed to offer anything better.

How about honesty? You know, what gets me about the whole "Bottgate" indicent is the way so many Mormons have attacked him as if the church is behind them on this. The fact is the Church has not said anything to prove him wrong. All it said recently is that his speculation as to why the ban was enforced, is his own and that the Church has no official position on that question other than "we don't know." In saying this, it is contradicting itself. And by that, I mean it is contradicting past statements by Church leaders who spoke authoritatively on the subject. Again, proving that the Church is willing to change according to society's expectations, even if it means it will contradict itself. From 1845 to 1949 the dominating view in the Church was that blacks were forbidden from the priesthood because of their actions in the preexistence. That's a full century of doctrine that has been engrained into the psyche of Mormons familiar with their Church's doctrinal history. What Bott said was typical of Mormons who have been left to their own reasoning abilities to come up with some plausible scenario that explains the "why" questions that the church never tries to answer.

[BCSpace]

The list is long...but what is currently on my mind is how the Church gets attacked for having a racist past, but on the other hand gets accused of only caring about its PR image when it distances itself from that past. Well, what exactly is the Church supposed to do?

Nothing. They're doing the right thing and all a member has to do is look to officially published LDS doctrine rather than the speculative works published by other members and yes, even leaders. The Church's definition of doctrine says that all 15 prophets and decide and then officially publish it. Sticking with that shows that the Church's doctrine is not, nor has it ever been, racist.

Even members of this board, who have long disdained the official notion that the LDS Newsroom is an official source of doctrine have now embraced two Newsroom statements as official doctrine as they should. There is safety in that.

As for PR, you're right. The Church does engage in that and has turned the proper face to criticsm without changing any doctrine just like they have done on other issues like homosexuality etc.

Edited March 4, 2012 by BCSpace

[Storm Rider]

Your question begging, aside, the church isn't content to just "share" things. They pressure. Ask a number of people who can't seem to get the home teachers to stop visiting them. When I was on my mission we were told to commit the person to baptism after only two of six discussions. Last week the sister missionaries came over and explained to us that now they are expected to commit them to baptism after the first "visit"; apparently the Church has decided to rid the mission field of the numbered "discussions."

Traditionally the missionary conversion effort relied on a very sophisticated system that was carefully developed by professionals from the psychologists employed by the Church. Missionaries would cover just the basic stuff during the first two discussions. Things like the atonement and the restoration. But after getting the person to commit to baptism, they come back to teach the tougher doctrines of the Church, such as tithing, law of chastity, word of wisdom, temple worthiness, etc. If that person decided to back out of the baptismal commitment, then the Elders would naturally remind him/her that he/she has already made a commitment and they use the usual testimony bearing tactics in an effort of trying to prove to that person that God is the one who wants him/her to get baptized.

So saying the Church only "shared" something and then moves along, is ridiculous. That would me more along the lines of what the Jehovah's witnesses do. They've given me their pamphlets on a number of occasions and then left it up to me to contact them if I was interested.

I knew there had to be some sinister group of all-seeing psychologist types leading the unsuspecting, innocent world citizen into a den of lies most easily. Jeez, I am glad there are such objective people like you in the world to let everyone know about it. Do they drink blood also or just sacrifice babies?

[Xander]

I knew there had to be some sinister group of all-seeing psychologist types leading the unsuspecting, innocent world citizen into a den of lies most easily. Jeez, I am glad there are such objective people like you in the world to let everyone know about it. Do they drink blood also or just sacrifice babies?

LOL!

There is nothing "sinister" about it. Hiring psychologists is the norm in all marketing depts trying to reach their intended customers. Just because it isn't based on revelation doesn't make it sinister. The Church adopts the same methods to sell their product the same way General Mills hires child psychologists to help produce their cereal commercials targeting children.

Last week the sister missionaries came over again and showed us yet ANOTHER video. Like before, it was straight off of the Mormon.org website. Like any other corporate commercial, it had professional actors with a proportionate race representation (black, Hispanic, Asian, Caucasian), the tear-jerking music, the sunset background, etc. The usual stuff that triggers feelings of emotion that Mormons insist is the spirit of God telling people "this Church is true." Who could have know that Hollywood had the keys to heaven all this time?

[The Nehor]

The LDS Church is in the business of converting everyone. It's hard to please everyone.

Yeah, but we aren't going to convert everyone. If the Messiah himself couldn't convert everyone he met it is doubtful we can do much better.

[thesometimesaint]

mbh26:

I like this one better.

We're in the buiness of offering to everyone the opportunity to covert. Obviously not everyone will take advantage of that opportunity.

[Analytics]

The list is long...but what is currently on my mind is how the Church gets attacked for having a racist past, but on the other hand gets accused of only caring about its PR image when it distances itself from that past. Well, what exactly is the Church supposed to do?

I know it was rhetorical question, but I'll answer it anyway. The reason the Church is getting attacked isn't because it has a racist past, but rather because it is now dealing with its own past so poorly. Broadly claiming that "we don't know" and we have "no official position" is a cop-out.

Here is exactly what the Church should do: President Monson should boldly declare that the priesthood ban originated with the racism of past church leaders and not from God. He should apologize on behalf of the church for the pain and misunderstanding that the church's institutionalized racism has caused. That would put the issue to rest.

It isn’t enough to say that the racist rationalizations offered by past apostles and prophets aren’t official doctrine. The Prophet should clarify that those beliefs are false.Until he does, the racist attitudes in the Church that have been on display this past week will fester.

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

How can you apologize for something you never did?

[selek1]

I know it was rhetorical question, but I'll answer it anyway. The reason the Church is getting attacked isn't because it has a racist past, but rather because it is now dealing with its own past so poorly.

The reason the Church is getting attacked is because it is politically and culturally advantageous to do so.

That is the only reason.

The Church was "dealing with its own past so poorly" a year ago, five years ago, and ten years ago.

It is only now- when a Mormon is likely to challenge Caesar Obama- that the powers that be feel the need to broach these issues.

Broadly claiming that "we don't know" and we have "no official position" is a cop-out.

No- the cop out lies in pretending that the costumed outrage is anything other than political opportunism. Edited March 4, 2012 by selek1

[Jeff K.]

The church is being attacked because it is growing. Anti Mormons were, in the past dismissed in their own little corners. They had small minds, small experiences, and were considered small people (Radkey is a very good example of the same). While the church was considered insignificant in size and scope, these little people were allowed to run their little attacks, and no one gave them much thought. They were (and are) the intellectual equivalent of crazy stepson in the attack. We note the same attacks now, occurred quite some time ago. Same rehashed and reviewed attacks. Same bigoted responses from Anti Mormons, same attacks on underwear, temples, temple marriages, proxy baptisms, polygamy. All of these doctrines known for over a century.

So why now?

The church is growing, it is moving forward, and no power upon this earth will stop it, but there are anti Mormons, both those who call themselves members (think of the Judas Isacariot type), and non members, who have something more now than in the past. A forest fire, even a prarie fire will die relatively quickly when there is no wind. But the wind that moves us forward also fans the little flames in hopes of making them conflagrations. We put them out, but the same people gleefully run around and attempt to toss out new sparks.

Why do people do it?

They do it for various reasons, some have personality issues, they are upset with one person in the church, and so hope their fulcurm of reason raison d etre lies upon their own egos and personalities. Others fear for their own belief systems and see a system that fulfills many lives, and fear their beliefs might fall on the wayside. Others are even more confounded, because they dislike the idea of a moralistic society, and place their own view of moralism higher than Gods, so they will do their best to tear it down. Infidelity for example is less important than being pleasured. Theirs is a morally bankrupt view, but the cheap coins they have left is all they have to hold on to. All of these people have retained the same passions they had when they were dismissed by society, based on the size of the church. Others are simply rather dim dupes who are easily led by a crowd, a groups, or a lynch mob. Their iron rod is of foam, easily brushed against and easily dismissed. Their tree of life is a building that is large and spacious, and they fell welcome and comforted there. They are the ultimate definition of a path of least resistance.

Imagine how self congratulatory anti Mormons feel now that the church is larger and people might actually listen to them? Their feelings of ego and "being the one" to change the church. In their mind they are the ark steadiers God will not touch. Some of them think that they are cloaked in righteousness and the prophet and apostles don't know what they are doing, and so need their "special guidance". Yes, I think dim dupes or worse, grima wormtongues who work knowingly for some other master, justification of the flesh.

They are and always have been the same, they aren't smarter, they aren't better people, they aren't even more righteous or unrighteous. They are simply being egged on by a larger crowd and as enemies of God (knowing and unknowing), they do the exact same thing they have always done.

The church is a wonderful institution. It builds families, it makes men better than they are. It offers gifts of the atonement undreamed of by most. Families that remain together forever, the value of a soul established by its potential, the love of ward, and the outward physical manifestation of God's love through the authority to take advantage of ordinances in order to return to Him.

But what does all that matter when compared to deciet, lies, the impugning of the church members as being ignorant. The attempt to denigrate the church through plays (celebrated by some members), the rejection of prophets, the attacks because members mobilize over moral laws. The gifts mean nothing to them. The reception of those wonderful infinite gifts are conditional upon the church responding to "those certain members" who have their pet projects and pet desires. You make your choices. Many of you make them now. Don't be surprised when you realize what you choices really mean.

So in the end, those same people who attack the church now (from outside and within) are the same ones that attacked the church before. Smae arguments, same intellectual capacity (or lack thereof), same bigotry, same everything. They just have a little help based on the church's growth. A rising tide sometimes unfortunately, raises all ships.

[why me]

Here's a wish for better days ahead for Mormonism!

We are experiencing growing pains. The media has finally noticed that the lds church exists. It is no different with the catholic church which takes a lot of hits too from the media. We are in the big leagues now because of Harry Reid, John Huntsman and Mitt Romney. Lets face it...the USA may have a mormon house leader and a mormon president when just a little while ago, we only had Mo Udall.

The lds church will be taking a lot of punches in the next year...hopefully, the injuries will not be serious and the church will come out stronger and a better fighter from the experience.

[Brade]

Special Update: Mormonism is not the most popular religion and lots of people think it's weird. More at 6.

[Jeff K.]

Certain people say the same thing about Jews and Muslims. What they don't realize is how such a view defines the accusers.

[why me]

Special Update: Mormonism is not the most popular religion and lots of people think it's weird. More at 6.

People think it is weird because of how it is being presented in the media. When we only had Mo Udall, no one thought it weird. And since it is being presented as weird, why would weird be popular?

[Analytics]

Analytics:

How can you apologize for something you never did?

Can you clarify your point? Are you suggesting the Church shouldn't take responsibility for its own actions, or are you saying the Church didn't do anything wrong?

I'm simply saying that the church should (and can) say something like: "The Church's policy regarding race was wrong. We recognize it had harmful consequences, including the promotion of false beliefs that were perpetuated to justify the misguided policy. The Church is sorry."

That's what I think the Church should do; it's just a sincere answer to a question posed in the OP.

[Analytics]

The reason the Church is getting attacked is because it is politically and culturally advantageous to do so.

That is the only reason.

The Church was "dealing with its own past so poorly" a year ago, five years ago, and ten years ago.

It is only now- when a Mormon is likely to challenge Caesar Obama- that the powers that be feel the need to broach these issues.

No- the cop out lies in pretending that the costumed outrage is anything other than political opportunism.

Out of curiosity, do you think the Washington Post article The Genesis of a Church's Stand on Race is an attack? I found it to be an even-handed, insightful article that is quite fair.

I don't think the Church is getting attacked all that much. It's just that more people are interested in it, so there are more news articles and such about it. That's all that's going on.

Keep it in perspective. Nobody with any prominance is attacking Mormonism anywhere close to, say, how Rush Limbaugh attacks Sandra Fluke.

[Freedom]

Compared to evangelicals, catholics, muslims and many other faiths, we are still being largely ignored. The worst is yet to come so hold on to your seats cause we are in for a rocky ride.