What Is An Anti-Mormon?

[CASteinman]

Missionaries certain call into question the beliefs of others. If they don't question their beliefs there is no reason to accept LDS beliefs or even listen to the missionaries in the first place.

Your sense of missionary work is distorted and wrong.

[CASteinman]

Yes, which is why I said "calling into question beliefs" doesn't qualify as anti-Mormonism.

You consistently misrepresent my words. I ask you to stop.

[Storm Rider]

I have never felt a simple critic or any form of critical thinking regarding LDS Churh's beliefs, doctrines, or history as anti-Mormon; however, the moment its evolves from asking questions to belittling it becomes anti-Mormon for me. You can see it coming from miles away, the "Gosh, gee-whiz, I only want to know about..." to the more pointed "if you believe that you are an idiot" asked in as many different forms as there are people.

I don't really understand why people resent the term. If you are anti-Mormon, admit it and move on. If, however, you find that being an anti-Mormon is the antithesis of being a Christian then abandon the stupidity of attempting to destroy a church and choose to follow Christ in patience and love. Even use words when necessary.

[Yirgacheffe]

You consistently misrepresent my words. I ask you to stop.

You are the one who listed "calls into question" and "beliefs", the way you set up your original post about what qualifies as "anti-Mormonism" leaves my interpretation perfectly valid. Maybe you need to elaborate on just what you think defines an anti-Mormon.

[CASteinman]

You are the one who listed "calls into question" and "beliefs", the way you set up your original post about what qualifies as "anti-Mormonism" leaves my interpretation perfectly valid. Maybe you need to elaborate on just what you think defines an anti-Mormon.

And you are the one who consistently misrepresents my words by misquoting them. I ask you PLEASE stop doing it. Please.

It is not valid to misquote me and then ascribe that misquote to me.

Edited May 23, 2012 by CASteinman

[Law22]

Well, if a Mormon Missionary does that, I believe that they are not working correctly. I was never taught to do that. I was taught to respect other beliefs and not disrespect them or in any way castigate them. I almost never have observed it personally -- but to the extent it happens, it would not be correct. The mission is not to tear down the faith of others but to proclaim the Gospel, baptizing those that believe.

And that is definitely not the same thing.

Respectfully, I must disagree. By definition, an LDS missionary will at minimum tell the potential convert that they cannot completely trust the Bible and that the LDS church is the only true church. These things are said not in an attempt to build interfaith relations with persons of other faiths. These things are said in order to convert someone to the LDS faith. This is done by attempting to "cause doubt or fear in the minds or hearts of members of other churches and the subsequent questioning of their faith." Again, I'm not saying that the LDS missionary is wrong to do this, any more than a member of any other faith would be wrong to attempt to convert others to their faith. This is precisely what is done by anyone attempting to convert another to any faith. Recall that the LDS missionary's purpose is not solely to share the Mormon faith, but ultimately to baptize the potential convert into the LDS church.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Law22

[selek1]

This is done by attempting to "cause doubt or fear in the minds or hearts of members of other churches and the subsequent questioning of their faith."

Respectfully, Latter-day Saint missionaries do not need to cause doubt or fear among those who are truly familiar with the Bible and its inherent contradictions.

Nor has it been my experience that we need to sow doubts and fears among those who are receptive to our message.

Every convert of my acquaintance (myself included) was looking for something more than what other denominations could offer.

The need and yearning were already there- the Church simply filled the holes that the other churches attempted to gloss over.

One of the observations made about the Savior and his ministry was that he taught with authority. He offered plain truths, rather than speculation or "best guesses".

It has been my experience that the same can be said of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[CASteinman]

Respectfully, I must disagree. By definition, an LDS missionary will at minimum tell the potential convert that they cannot completely trust the Bible.

Just false.

the LDS church is the only true church.

That is right, but incomplete. I always made a point to tell them that every Church had truth to it and that the Church that they belonged to was a good thing in the world. I never ever wanted anyone to join the LDS Church because I made them fear or hate or distrust their Church. I felt that was a weak program.

And that is very very different from how anti-Mormons work.

This is done by attempting to "cause doubt or fear in the minds or hearts of members of other churches and the subsequent questioning of their faith."

Never ever ever. To the extent that if they wanted to talk about the differences between their Church and the LDS Church, I would shy away -- with only one exception. I was willing to simply listen to what they said their Church taught and then say what our Church taught. I would never in that exchange tell them anything to make them feel that they had to fear or doubt their faith.

And I had a very specific reason for that: I wanted to leave them better people -- not worse. If they did not join the LDS Church I wanted them nevertheless to feel more like going to at least SOME Church.

But I think that there is a bigger issue here.

You seem to think that any religious discussion, any missionary activity is an attack on another faith. Your views are idiosyncratic. I accept that you have them, but I do not accept them as reasonable.

I don't believe we are accomplishing anything with this discussion. It seems to go like this: You: By teaching Mormonism you are attacking and undermining the faith of others. Me: No. You :Yes you are. Me: No I am not.

That's pointless.

[Law22]

Just false.

That is right, but incomplete. I always made a point to tell them that every Church had truth to it and that the Church that they belonged to was a good thing in the world. I never ever wanted anyone to join the LDS Church because I made them fear or hate or distrust their Church. I felt that was a weak program.

And that is very very different from how anti-Mormons work.

Never ever ever. To the extent that if they wanted to talk about the differences between their Church and the LDS Church, I would shy away -- with only one exception. I was willing to simply listen to what they said their Church taught and then say what our Church taught. I would never in that exchange tell them anything to make them feel that they had to fear or doubt their faith.

And I had a very specific reason for that: I wanted to leave them better people -- not worse. If they did not join the LDS Church I wanted them nevertheless to feel more like going to at least SOME Church.

But I think that there is a bigger issue here.

You seem to think that any religious discussion, any missionary activity is an attack on another faith. Your views are idiosyncratic. I accept that you have them, but I do not accept them as reasonable.

I don't believe we are accomplishing anything with this discussion. It seems to go like this: You: By teaching Mormonism you are attacking and undermining the faith of others. Me: No. You :Yes you are. Me: No I am not.

That's pointless.

You left out "I know you are but what am I?"

And you're right, I do believe that in order to successfully convert a person from one religion to another one must necessarily say/do something that will cause the person to sufficiently doubt their present faith that they choose to leave it for the other faith.

Btw, that the LDS missionary must convince the potential convert that they cannot completely trust the Bible is also completely true. Otherwise there would be no need for the Book of Mormon, and, perhaps more to the point, the missionary would never have to explain how the Bible has been falsely translated.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Law22

[Storm Rider]

Btw, that the LDS missionary must convince the potential convert that they cannot completely trust the Bible is also completely true. Otherwise there would be no need for the Book of Mormon, and, perhaps more to the point, the missionary would never have to explain how the Bible has been falsely translated.

Absolutely balderdash! You probably are not aware that the Book of Mormon's purpose. It is hidden and not shared much with people....it is found on the Title Page:

• Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—
  
• And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations.
  

Two stated purposes 1) to Israel that the Lord has not cast them off, and 2) to everyone else that Jesus is the Christ. NOT A SINGLE THING THAT WOULD GIVE ANY INTELLIGENT INDIVIDUAL A REASON THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BELIEVE THE BIBLE.

The complete fantasies that anti-Mormons will go through in order to believe and maintain their twisted views of the restored gospel never ceases to amze me. The mental gymnastics are so absurd and yet they daily occur. This is a prime example of total resistance except to keep the head in the sand and repeat over and over; it is the way I say it is.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Storm Rider

[CASteinman]

And you're right, I do believe that in order to successfully convert a person from one religion to another one must necessarily say/do something that will cause the person to sufficiently doubt their present faith that they choose to leave it for the other faith.

We just do not agree on that at all. For example: I helped convert and baptize a fellow who was an Anglican lay person in the ministry.. He was a friend of the Dalai Lama and of the Archbishop of Canterberry as well. He had a PhD in Divinity from Cambridge and engaged in worldwide ecumenical councils.

He joined the Church but never left any of his affinity for his prior Church and continued to work on ecumenical councils. He never felt his prior Church was false but that had found greater light and knowledge -- which he had been seeking all over the world. He brought his ecumenical approach to the LDS Church, worked with LDS leaders in that area and just never had any diminished sense of faith in his former beliefs at all -- just a sense of increased spirituality and knowledge. When I was teaching him, there was a time or two that I felt an urge to step on some things he believed -- but I held myself back and never did it. The most important of these were not things his Church taught, but rather some of his own developed doctrines.

But, as I have said, we are going back and forth pointlessly.

Btw, that the LDS missionary must convince the potential convert that they cannot completely trust the Bible is also completely true. Otherwise there would be no need for the Book of Mormon, and, perhaps more to the point, the missionary would never have to explain how the Bible has been falsely translated.

Again, just false. The acceptance of the Book of Mormon does not require any belief that the Bible is fallible. It just doesn't. No matter how much you insist that it is required, it is not. There are MANY LDS people who seemingly take the Bible as infallible and also accept the Book of Mormon as well.

In fact, there was even a few years ago a Baptist who believed it and was trying to publish the Book of Mormon on his own as a companion to the Bible for Christians. He gave it a new title and all. I spoke with him a few times and he totally believed the Bible -- not just any Bible but the King James Bible and he believed the Book of Mormon.

[Deborah]

Every convert of my acquaintance (myself included) was looking for something more than what other denominations could offer.

That is where I was at as a convert as well. I'd already been studying and felt I had not found the answers. People who invite the missionaries in already know something is missing.

[Messenger]

That is where I was at as a convert as well. I'd already been studying and felt I had not found the answers. People who invite the missionaries in already know something is missing.

I would add that 90% of the time that main part that's missing is Holy Ghost as a constant companion, and the Priesthood, which is what makes it all true.

[Calm]

Btw, that the LDS missionary must convince the potential convert that they cannot completely trust the Bible is also completely true. Otherwise there would be no need for the Book of Mormon, and, perhaps more to the point, the missionary would never have to explain how the Bible has been falsely translated.

If the Bible actually stated that it was the sole vehicle of the Word of God or that it was inerrant, you might be right. But since the Bible does not claim that there is to be no additional scripture, then the existence of the BoM does not require a distrust of the Bible...only a distrust of those who say God no longer speaks to men in the same ways as he did at the time of Christ and before.

Same thing with inerrancy.

Edited May 23, 2012 by calmoriah

[Law22]

If the Bible actually stated that it was the sole vehicle of the Word of God or that it was inerrant, you might be right. But since the Bible does not claim that there is to be no additional scripture, then the existence of the BoM does not require a distrust of the Bible...only a distrust of those who say God no longer speaks to men in the same ways as he did at the time of Christ and before.

Same thing with inerrancy.

Actually, your post is absolutely correct, and, I'm afraid, born of a poorly worded post by me. What I was trying to discuss/highlight was the LDS statement that the Book of Mormon is the "most correct book ever written," together with the LDS statement, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." These statements necessarily cause doubt in the trustworthiness of the Bible.

[Calm]

But the Book of Mormon states almost the same thing saying that if there are errors they are the errors of men.

So LDS tend to view both the Bible and the BoM in the same way as vehicles for the Word of God through the hands of imperfect men. At most one can say we look on the Book of Mormon as the book most correct/complete in bringing people to the Lord, but this does not have to mean that the Bible isn't effective in this way as well and therefore can be trusted as the rest of our scriptures are, each adding something unique to God's story while sharing teachings as well.

[volgadon]

Actually, your post is absolutely correct, and, I'm afraid, born of a poorly worded post by me. What I was trying to discuss/highlight was the LDS statement that the Book of Mormon is the "most correct book ever written," together with the LDS statement, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." These statements necessarily cause doubt in the trustworthiness of the Bible.

Are you required to believe a wrong translation or interpretation of the Bible?

[dougtheavenger]

Mormons are the most lied about people on Earth. That is not an accident. There is a small but dedicated group of anti-Mormons who lie boldly and attempt to foment hostility against Mormons. See 19th century cartoon below. Our critics would be hard pressed to claim this bit of anti-Mormon rubbish was not absurd, but it is no more absurd than things posted online today.

[Rivers]

Mormons are the most lied about people on Earth.

Here is a perfect example of the persecution complex that mormons have.

The way I see it is this: When we send missionaries all over the world proclaiming that we are the one and only true church on the face of the earth, some criticism should be expected.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Rivers

[thesometimesaint]

Rivers:

There can't be more than one and only true and living church on the face of the earth. I can tolerate criticism, but outright lying is quite another thing.

[Pahoran]

Here is a perfect example of the persecution complex that mormons have.

There is a perfect example of what Doug was saying.

Have I mentioned that I despise meaningless psychobabble?

The way I see it is this: When we send missionaries all over the world proclaiming that we are the one and only true church on the face of the earth, some criticism should be expected.

So, because we have the temerity to obey the commandment to preach the Lord's Gospel, we deserve to be the targets of that sort of garbage. Is that it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[KevinG]

Here is a perfect example of the persecution complex that mormons have.

This is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of those who are opposed to (anti-) the religion and culture of restorationist churches who view the Book of Mormon as scripture (Mormon) taking swipes at the people of the Mormon religions then crying out like a stuck pig whenever those Mormons bother to acknowledge and defend themselves against baseless and silly charges (propaganda).

Anti-Mormon Propaganda. Its a good description. If the shoe fits...

Edited May 24, 2012 by KevinG

[KevinG]

Hey I have a fun CFR for Rivers. Go find me an example of Mormons claiming persecution when indeed there was no evidence of any offending behavior on the part of others.

Not simple misunderstandings but real live cases... I won't hold my breath.

Edited May 24, 2012 by KevinG

[Jaybear]

Here is a perfect example of the persecution complex that mormons have.The way I see it is this: When we send missionaries all over the world proclaiming that we are the one and only true church on the face of the earth, some criticism should be expected.

So, because we have the temerity to obey the commandment to preach the Lord's Gospel, we deserve to be the targets of that sort of garbage. Is that it?

That's funny. Right after he accuses Mormons of having a persecution complex, you go and take umbrage over something he never said.

[Kevin Christensen]

Here is a perfect example of the persecution complex that mormons have.

The way I see it is this: When we send missionaries all over the world proclaiming that we are the one and only true church on the face of the earth, some criticism should be expected.

As an exercise in textual criticism, see how many words you must first delete, and then add to get D&C 1:30 to say "We are the one and only true church on the face of the earth." Then ask whether that kind of deletion and addition suggests careful reading and reasonable interpretation.

And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

Notice that it does not say "one and only" but something else. Other passages in D&C 1 rule out the kind of exclusiveness that "one and only" claims.

For instance, verse 18, coming after the Lord stating that he spoke to Joseph Smith, says "And also gave commandments to others.." who are unspecified. Later, verse 34 says "And again, verily I say unto you, O inhabitants of the earth: I the Lord am willing to make these things known unto all flesh;" This is expressly non-exclusive with respect to truth and revelation.

The way I parse D&C 1: 30, the word "only" modifies the important phrase "with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually." The only well pleasing church, collectively speaking, as measured against the meaning of the word pair "true and living." I looked through the Bible for the ways "true" and/or "living" are used to get a better idea of the intent, and found passages involving a voice of warning (Jer. 10:10), revelation and ordinances (living waters), living bread, true treasure, true vine, tree of life, truth and life, "living way" (in Hebrews in a passage describing the temple veil) and just recently, this passage from 2 Peter: 2:4-5.

"To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious. Ye also, as lively [i.e. in recent translations, living] stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."

Now it happens that the themes of the Biblical passages that use "true" and "living" match up with the themes of D&C 1 as a whole, point for point, verse for verse. And the themes of voice of warning, revelation, priesthood, ordinances and covenants, and Temple, turn out to correspond to aspects of LDS claims and practices that do in actual fact distinguish the LDS faith from others. Not in terms of exclusive truth, or revelation or personal virtue, but of what scriptures suggests as is best described through themes associated with the word pair, "true and living."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

PS.

For a very good example of an anti-Mormon, see:

http://www.keepapitc...ripper-mormons/

Edited May 24, 2012 by Kevin Christensen