What Is An Anti-Mormon?

[Rivers]

There is a perfect example of what Doug was saying.

Have I mentioned that I despise meaningless psychobabble?

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

I wouldn't say we deserve it. I just think that all of the critisism we get is a natural response to the types of claims that we make. And the more publicity we get, the more opportunities people have to criticize us.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Rivers

[KevinG]

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

I'm pretty sure the quote function works properly. What thread were you reading?

[KevinG]

I wouldn't say we deserve it. I just think that all of the critisism we get is a natural response to the types of claims that we make. And the more publicity we get, the more opportunities people have to criticize us.

And what claims are "we" making that deserve criticism like "we" get and how would you alter the missionary program to alleviate this problem and the resulting "persecution complex".

[Rivers]

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.

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/

I like this way of interpreting things.

[Rivers]

And what claims are "we" making that deserve criticism like "we" get and how would you alter the missionary program to alleviate this problem and the resulting "persecution complex".

I would say the boldest claim we make would be exclusive priesthood autority. A lot of people who I talked to on my mission were very uncomfortable with idea that only one church had the authority to perform baptisms that are recognized by God.

I can't think of anything that the missionary program can imrove upon. I think Preach My Gospel is a great manual that helps missionaries to know the essential teachings of the gospel and the restoration. I'm simply saying that a lot of people don't like our bold claims and their going to find ways to show how our claims are inaccurate.

What I would like to see is more people having an understanding of how univeral our beliefs really are. While we have claims to exclusive authority, our theology presents a God who is a heck of a lot more loving and merciful than most other Chritian denominations.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Rivers

[KevinG]

Claiming priesthood authority and the fullness of the Gospel is a far cry from claiming to be "the one and only true church on the face of the earth" (Not something I teach or is written in any manual I am aware of) And even at face value receiving the kind of vitriol reserved for Mormons (and sometimes Catholics and Christians in general) is not deserved. And defending one's self against that vitriol does not mean one has a persecution complex.

Still waiting on that CFR for the Mormon persecution complex.

[volgadon]

Mormons are the most lied about people on Earth.

That is debatable.

[Jaybear]

Claiming priesthood authority and the fullness of the Gospel is a far cry from claiming to be "the one and only true church on the face of the earth" (Not something I teach or is written in any manual I am aware of) And even at face value receiving the kind of vitriol reserved for Mormons (and sometimes Catholics and Christians in general) is not deserved. And defending one's self against that vitriol does not mean one has a persecution complex.

Still waiting on that CFR for the Mormon persecution complex.

Please clarify,

Are you saying that (1)you don't believe that the LDS Church is the one and only true church on the face of the earth; or (2) you do so believe, but don't say so in mixed company so as not to offend anyone?

That is debatable.

No its not. The assertion is laughable.

[volgadon]

No its not. The assertion is laughable.

I opted for the softer approach.

[CASteinman]

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."

If you diagram the sentence, the word "only" may modify "true", "true and living" or "Church" (with "Church" then being further joined to the phrase about being well pleased.)

However, in order for "only" to modify "Church" I think it would have to have a comma between it and the word "true". Otherwise, I believe that the rules of English would require the word "only" to modify the very next word or phrase.

I don't think your parsing can be justified by looking at rules of grammar.

I note, also, that Prophets and Apostles routinely quote this phrase and leave off the bit about "with whom I the Lord and well pleased". For your parsing to be correct, one would have to believe that they are consistently lying to us by misquoting the passage and leaving off the part that the word "only" relates to.

I think that a better explanation, and in keeping with the rules of grammar is that they are quoting it correctly and that the word "only" modifies "true" or possibly "True and Living".

The interesting thing about this is that if you are very pedantic and insist that the Lord "command in all things", then you can say "Ahhh.. so its the Only "True and Living Church. with which the Lord is well pleased, but that there might be some False and Dead Churches that He is well pleased with also.

This is absurd on its face, but I would not be surprised to see someone make that argument.

Edited May 24, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

I guess I should probably point out that the core diagram of the passage would roughly be (I can't actually do all the formal diagramming):

I | am / Pleased

with Church

"I" being connected with "The Lord" and "Pleased" being modified by "Well".

Then Church being modified by "True" and "Living". Then "Only would modify "True" (Or possibly a connected "True and Living".

[Deborah]

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.

If we were criticized for merely this then you might have a point. However, the antagonism and lies about the church usually have nothing to do with this and I don't think this is as a big an issue as you think. The Catholic church also makes this claim. And though other "churches" don't necessarily make this claim many preachers from other churches make the claim that they are preaching the only truth, hence their disparagement of our doctrine.

[blackstrap]

Aunty - Mormon = my mom's sister who is a member of the Daughters of the Utah Pioneers

Ante-Mormon = what you were before you were a mormon

Anti- Mormon = being against that nasty General

Edited May 25, 2012 by blackstrap

[Pahoran]

If you diagram the sentence, the word "only" may modify "true", "true and living" or "Church" (with "Church" then being further joined to the phrase about being well pleased.)

However, in order for "only" to modify "Church" I think it would have to have a comma between it and the word "true". Otherwise, I believe that the rules of English would require the word "only" to modify the very next word or phrase.

I don't think your parsing can be justified by looking at rules of grammar.

I note, also, that Prophets and Apostles routinely quote this phrase and leave off the bit about "with whom I the Lord and well pleased". For your parsing to be correct, one would have to believe that they are consistently lying to us by misquoting the passage and leaving off the part that the word "only" relates to.

I think that a better explanation, and in keeping with the rules of grammar is that they are quoting it correctly and that the word "only" modifies "true" or possibly "True and Living".

The interesting thing about this is that if you are very pedantic and insist that the Lord "command in all things", then you can say "Ahhh.. so its the Only "True and Living Church. with which the Lord is well pleased, but that there might be some False and Dead Churches that He is well pleased with also.

This is absurd on its face, but I would not be surprised to see someone make that argument.

It's not at all absurd on its face.

CA, I don't know how we're going to make any progress when over-zealous members tear shreds off their fellow Latter-day Saints for holding different views. I don't agree with everything Kevin writes, but I appreciate the intelligence and scholarship he brings to bear on these discussions.

It happens that his argument is both sensible and plausible. The claim that Doctrine and Covenants 1:30 simply means "only true Church" is slipshod and lazy. It might be useful to look at the passage in question as saying:

"The only X with which I the Lord am well pleased."

If people then said that the passage declared something to be "the only X," I think you'd realise that they were wrong.

The Lord's well-pleased view of the Church is at least as relevant, if not more so, than the adjectives with which the Church is described.

Incidentally, have you ever wondered what a "true Church" is? I suggest that "true" in this context does not, because it cannot, mean "factually accurate" or anything similar. Rather, it means something like "faithful." The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints isn't "true" because every statement it makes is correct, but because it is faithful to the Lord who established it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[CASteinman]

It's not at all absurd on its face.

I am going to ignore the rest of your chastisement for a moment because I think you made a mistake. But let me confirm that before I assume too much.

You think the following statement is not absurd:

"The Lord is well pleased with False and Dead Churches"

Do you really think that is a reasonable statement?

Edited May 25, 2012 by CASteinman

[Lightbearer]

I don't think that the term "anti-mormon" is an appropriate word for those who disagree with our beliefs and present arguments against them. I think those people are best referred to as "critics of the church."

For those of you who use the word "anti-mormon," what is your criteria for determining who should be called an anti-mormon?

Having been the brunt of much Anti-Mormon slander throughout my life, especially in the Mission field, I can recognize Anti-Mormon attacks very easily for what they are. In fact I put it on the same level as Anti-Christ propaganda because their intent is the same, to undermine faith and destroy the Church. They may draw near unto the Lord with their lips but their hearts are far from Him. That is why these bullies tend to tag team against the Saints and compass them about and make war with them. I have no respect for Anti-Mormons because they are the enemies of God and thus are my enemies. They are the emissaries of Satan, while they are either dupes or willing accomplies the end result is the same. They want to turn investigators away from the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. They are much like the Pharasees of old, they tryed to catch the Lord's servants in their words, they do not want to convert anyone they want to poison minds so that they will harden their hearts and blind their minds against the truth.

Those who want to be called "critics" are those who try to deny their hatred of the truth, they have the same objectives as the openly brazen Anti-Mormons...destroying the Church, but mostly because they want to be viewed as the "loyal opposition" instead of branded as traitors or apostates. As for deserving it, yes we really do deserve to be persecuted, we are the Lord Jesus Christ's servants, that is the heritage of the faithful, we are the weak and the despised of the earth that are sent forth to thrash the nations. Of course we will be the target of the venom of a generation of vipers. We are the disturbers of Satan's kingdom, so will the "world" love us? Of course not, the only ones who will accept our message are those who are the Lord's sheep, those who oppose it are not His sheep.

Of course Satan howls: "persecution complex" "Self righteous" "arrogant presumption"! All these are are the "fiery darts of the adversary" and they are meaningless. Jesus Himself suffered these things and much greater, why should the Saints be expected to be spared these things? Are we greater than He? It is hard to say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" but we really should, and we should feel sorry for those whom the mists of darkness blind forever.

[Pahoran]

I am going to ignore the rest of your chastisement for a moment because I think you made a mistake. But let me confirm that before I assume too much.

You think the following statement is not absurd:

"The Lord is well pleased with False and Dead Churches"

Do you really think that is a reasonable statement?

No, I do not think that is a reasonable statement.

I also don't think it is a reasonable paraphrase of anything anyone has said on this thread. As such it is essentially a straw man.

Kevin did not say that the Lord might be pleased with false and dead churches, or anything that might reasonably be interpreted to mean that. Nor, indeed, was he rejecting the unique truth claims of the Church. Rather, as I read him, he was arguing that D&C 1:30 is not merely a claim of exclusive truth, but primarily a statement of what the Church must do in order to qualify for the Lord to continue to be well pleased with it.

CA, there is not one Mormon[TM] view of things against which all opinions must be measured. Over the years, I have seen posters hold such rigid views. Over time, they tend to turn on their fellow Latter-day Saints to whom they ought, in Martin Luther's words, to "call encouragement."

The Gospel, as I have learned it, is not a hard and fast system of closed, once-for-all answers. We do not grow in knowledge by simply accumulating dry facts. Rather, we grow by coming to appreciate the boundless depth and breadth of knowledge available to us. The dictionary and the grammar book are tools for us to use, not fences to hem us in. I invite you to lift your eyes from them and contemplate the infinite vastness of the heavens.

Regards,

Pahoran

[CASteinman]

No, I do not think that is a reasonable statement.

OK. But when I said it was absurd on its face, you took exception to that (you said "It's not at all absurd on its face") and took great pains to chastise me. You seem to still be on that kick.

Did you even bother to actually read what I wrote? Why don't you try reading it again with a modicum of the charity that you apparently are chastising me for not possessing?

Edited May 25, 2012 by CASteinman

[zerinus]

D&C 1:

30 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—

Here is how I parse this sentence: "only" is an adverb which qualifies the phrase "true and living church". "True" and "living" are adjectives which qualify "church". In other words, it is the only church (from the Lord's point of view) which is both "true" and "living" (whatever that means), anywhere on earth, and with which He is well pleased. Putting it another way, there is no other church anywhere on earth which is either "true" or "living" (as the Lord sees it), and with which He is well pleased. It is the only one of its kind.

"Speaking unto the church collectively and not individually" means that the Lord is not vouching for the righteousness of every single member of the Church. Not every Church member may be as righteous as they should be. Some may even be outright transgressors. But collectively, or institutionally, the Church qualifies for that designation.

"True" means that it is what it claims to be; it is the genuine article. The Lord has established it Himself, given it His priesthood power, and ordained its ministers. It is the only one (denominationally speaking) which He acknowledges to be His Church.

"Living" I believe means spiritually alive. It is built on the Lord's true gospel, therefore "will the Father show forth his own works in it" (3 Nephi 27:10). It is the only one which has the gift and power of the Holy Ghost, which "quickeneth" (D&C 33:16), "giveth life to" (D&C 88:13), "all things". In the Book of Revelation the Lord castigates a certain church for appearing to be alive, but in reality being dead:

Revelation 3:

1 And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.

2 Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.

The Lord is designating the LDS Church as being the only one which is "spiritually alive" today. The rest produce "dead works" (D&C 22). Their ordinances "availeth nothing". They have no salvific effect. That I believe is what is meant by "living church".

[Kevin Christensen]

I'm an English major and a professional technical writing, so I spent a lot of time diagramming sentences.

The only polished and shiney car in the parking lot with which the Lord is well pleased.

That is, not necessarily the only car, nor the only polished car, not the only shiney car, not the only polished and shiney car, and perhaps not the only pleasing car, but the only one with which the Lord is well pleased, and we might reasonably conclude that the reason for the relative well pleasingness has to do with the polish and shine.

It's the structure of the sentence, not the adjacent word, that define what the word "only" qualitifies.

So what does "true and living" mean? I think it is a merism, a paired set of terms whose combined meaning encompasses the themes of D&C 1 as a whole. Voice of warning, priesthood (true vine), ordinances and covenants (living bread, living waters), revelation, including the Book of Mormon (living waters), tree of life, "living way through the veil," living stones," etc. which all have temple associations. And as I say, in actual practice it is just those themes that distinguish the LDS gathering from others.

I'm very much aware that my reading is not what is generally taught, but I'm also aware that the best way to interpret a text is not to remove everything from a text that does not say what you expect it to say. If the extra verbage in D&C 1:30 is mere rhetorical flourish, void of content, a way to say something with 30 words that could be said simply with 3, then why does the rest of D&C 1 expressly rule out that exclusivist reading? Why insist that God also spoke to unspecified "others" and that God is willing to provide the information to all flesh? Why insist so bluntly of leaders that "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest" and that further knowledge may come in response to inquiry, and further revelation may come as well? That suggests that we don't have all truth on the shelf, and that until we start asking, we won't even know what we don't know, or if anything we think we know is wrong or incomplete. I grew up hearing "only true church" in every testimony. It was trying to account for the "and living" that started me looking closely.

I think the standard interpretation derives more from the early stages of Perry Scheme thinking than from close reading of the text.

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate. (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds. They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong. They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.

The cultural expectation of what the text says interferes with perception and comprehension of what the text offers.. To a large extent, we tend to see what we expect to see. As Nibley pointed out, "every anomally is really a hint that there is more knowledge waiting." For me "and living" was a hint that led to more.

Joseph Smith's own attitude reflects more the ninth stage thinking:

The great designs of God in relation to the salvation of the human family, are very little understood by the professedly wise and intelligent generation in which we live. Various and conflicting are the opinions of men concerning the plan of salvation, the requisitions of the Almighty, the necessary preparations for heaven, the state and condition of departed spirits, and the happiness or misery that is consequent upon the practice of righteousness and iniquity according to their several notions of virtue and vice.

But while one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard; He views them as His offspring, and without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of man, causes "His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." He holds the reins of judgment in His hands; He is a wise Lawgiver, and will judge all men, not according to the narrow, contracted notions of men, but, "according to the deeds done in the body whether they be good or evil," or whether these deeds were done in England, America, Spain, Turkey, or India. He will judge them, "not according to what they have not, but according to what they have," those who have lived without law, will be judged without law, and those who have a law, will by judged by that law. We need not doubt the wisdom and intelligence of the Great Jehovah; He will award judgment or mercy to all nations according to their several deserts, their means of obtaining intelligence, the laws by which they are governed, the facilities afforded them of obtaining correct information, and His inscrutable designs in relation to the human family; and when the designs of God shall be made manifest, and the curtain of futurity be withdrawn, we shall all of us eventually have to confess that the Judge of all the earth has done right.

Compare:

POSITION 9. Commitments in Relativism further developed.

The person now has a developed sense of irony and can more easily embrace other's viewpoints. He can accept life as just that "life", just the way IT is! Now he holds the commitments he makes in a condition of "PROVISIONAL ULTIMACY", meaning that for him what he chooses to be truth IS his truth, and he acts as if it is ultimate truth, but there is still a "provision" for change. He has no illusions about having "arrived" permanently on top of some heap, he is ready and knows he will have to retrace his journey over and over, but he has hope that he will do it each time more wisely. He is aware that he is developing his IDENTITY through Commitment. He can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known--meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known. He helps weld a community by sharing realization of aloneness and gains strength and intimacy through this shared vulnerability. He has discarded obedience in favor of his own agency, and he continues to select, judge, and build.

Pahoran is on the mark.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Edited May 25, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Law22]

Having been the brunt of much Anti-Mormon slander throughout my life, especially in the Mission field, I can recognize Anti-Mormon attacks very easily for what they are. In fact I put it on the same level as Anti-Christ propaganda because their intent is the same, to undermine faith and destroy the Church. They may draw near unto the Lord with their lips but their hearts are far from Him. That is why these bullies tend to tag team against the Saints and compass them about and make war with them. I have no respect for Anti-Mormons because they are the enemies of God and thus are my enemies. They are the emissaries of Satan, while they are either dupes or willing accomplies the end result is the same. They want to turn investigators away from the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. They are much like the Pharasees of old, they tryed to catch the Lord's servants in their words, they do not want to convert anyone they want to poison minds so that they will harden their hearts and blind their minds against the truth.

Those who want to be called "critics" are those who try to deny their hatred of the truth, they have the same objectives as the openly brazen Anti-Mormons...destroying the Church, but mostly because they want to be viewed as the "loyal opposition" instead of branded as traitors or apostates. As for deserving it, yes we really do deserve to be persecuted, we are the Lord Jesus Christ's servants, that is the heritage of the faithful, we are the weak and the despised of the earth that are sent forth to thrash the nations. Of course we will be the target of the venom of a generation of vipers. We are the disturbers of Satan's kingdom, so will the "world" love us? Of course not, the only ones who will accept our message are those who are the Lord's sheep, those who oppose it are not His sheep.

Of course Satan howls: "persecution complex" "Self righteous" "arrogant presumption"! All these are are the "fiery darts of the adversary" and they are meaningless. Jesus Himself suffered these things and much greater, why should the Saints be expected to be spared these things? Are we greater than He? It is hard to say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" but we really should, and we should feel sorry for those whom the mists of darkness blind forever.

Wow. This was intense!

[zerinus]

Thank you Kevin for taking the trouble to reply to my post.

I'm an English major and a professional technical writing, so I spent a lot of time diagramming sentences.

Alas, I am none of those. In fact, English is my second language! But I think I have a pretty good idea of how to use it.

The only polished and shiney car in the parking lot with which the Lord is well pleased.

That is, not necessarily the only car, nor the only polished car, not the only shiney car, not the only polished and shiney car, and perhaps not the only pleasing car, but the only one with which the Lord is well pleased, and we might reasonably conclude that the reason for the relative well pleasingness has to do with the polish and shine.

It's the structure of the sentence, not the adjacent word, that define what the word "only" qualitifies.

The adjacent words are also important, because they establish the nearest antecedent. That verse could either be understood to mean, "There are many true and living churches, but this is the only one with which the Lord is well pleased;" or to mean, "This is the only true and living Church there is, and the Lord is well pleased with it." I think the context, and the rule of antecedent, necessitates the latter reading.

So what does "true and living" mean? . . .

I prefer my own definitions better!

[Rivers]

Claiming priesthood authority and the fullness of the Gospel is a far cry from claiming to be "the one and only true church on the face of the earth" (Not something I teach or is written in any manual I am aware of) And even at face value receiving the kind of vitriol reserved for Mormons (and sometimes Catholics and Christians in general) is not deserved. And defending one's self against that vitriol does not mean one has a persecution complex.

Still waiting on that CFR for the Mormon persecution complex.

Again, I never said anybody deserves to be criticized.

I don't have a reference for the mormon persecution complex. I simply think that the term "anti-mormon" is thrown around too loosely by some members of the church. I personally don't like using the term. I like the way that the FAIR website uses the term "critics" in its articles.

The most vocal and harshest critics of the church are evangelicals and former members. I can understand the evangelicals because they honestly believe that we are going Hell. I can kind of understand the former members because I've had my own personal struggles with the Mormon faith and I have some empathy for them.

[KevinG]

Are you saying that (1)you don't believe that the LDS Church is the one and only true church on the face of the earth; or (2) you do so believe, but don't say so in mixed company so as not to offend anyone?

Is there a third choice involving all churches having truth and the Mormons having the fullness of the Gospel as revealed at this time by God? That would be my answer.

[zerinus]

Again, I never said anybody deserves to be criticized.

I don't have a reference for the mormon persecution complex. I simply think that the term "anti-mormon" is thrown around too loosely by some members of the church.

My experience is different. I find that most LDS use it with reluctance, or do not use it at all. It is a descriptive word that is underused.

I personally don't like using the term. I like the way that the FAIR website uses the term "critics" in its articles.

Some are critics and some are "anti"s. It is necessary to distinguish between the two. FAIR is a serious academic site, so it's publications are primarily addressed to the critic, not the "anti". This does not mean that there are no "anti"s.

The most vocal and harshest critics of the church are evangelicals and former members. I can understand the evangelicals because they honestly believe that we are going Hell.

I think they are coming from hell! (At least, the "anti"s do.)

I can kind of understand the former members because I've had my own personal struggles with the Mormon faith and I have some empathy for them.

I think "apostates" is a better word to describe them.

Edited May 25, 2012 by zerinus