What Is An Anti-Mormon?

[Law22]

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.

I like that one too. But what to do with the "all other churches are an abomination" stuff?

[Kevin Christensen]

I like that one too. But what to do with the "all other churches are an abomination" stuff?

Notice that the question here is a misquote. For the 1838 account of his vision, Joseph reported being told that creeds were an abomination. Elsewhere, he explained exactly what made them so, from my essay in RBBM 7/2,

This is why Joseph Smith opposed creeds, not because they are false teachings,²⁸ but because "creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further'; which I cannot subscribe to."²⁹ The message of the First Vision is not that a true creed had come to replace the false ones, but that the heavens had opened. You don't need to worship at a cistern when you've got a fountain (see Jeremiah 2:13). Creeds tend to create rigid background expectations which become "abominable" by promoting static authoritarianism that resists further light and knowledge.³⁰ This is not to say that we should bow without resistance to every wind of doctrine that happens to blow by (Ephesians 4:11-16), but that resistance to new ideas should be just as carefully considered as acceptance of such (Acts 10:9-28). Too often, creeds buy present conformity (as when the Inquisitors came to chat with Galileo about astronomy, torture, and correct thinking) with the coin of future faith (such as those for whom the Galileo incident becomes the defining myth of the relationship between science and religion).³¹ Creeds make for spiritual vulnerability in those whose cisterns are too brittle to change shape and too fragile to take shocks.³²

...

Again, Joseph Smith opposed creeds, not because they are false teachings,¹⁸¹ but because "creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further'; which I cannot subscribe to."

The most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some particular creed, which deprived its members [of] the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.

182

Joseph said of the creeds that "all of them have some truth." He also said "It dont [sic] prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine"; Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center Monograph, 1980), 183-84. So it's not a matter of lack of truth or even of false beliefs. Rigid creeds prevent repentence. What could be more abominable than that?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Law22]

After reading all of the posts in this thread, I'm left to wonder if LDS are right to so vilify the "anti." Is it the message the anti brings or is it the manner in which it is brought? If it's the message, it hardly seems fair for the LDS church to take the "one true church" position, together with the "all other churches are an abomination" stuff, and then get upset when non-LDS disagrees with you. If it's the manner in which the message is brought, and we're talking about non-LDS people who are mean, rude, and nasty, then I say pound em. But, if we're talking about non-LDS who are merely persistent in their views that the LDS church is "wrong," then I say you really can't pound em. The LDS church has way too many missionaries out there trying to convert others this way.

[volgadon]

But, if we're talking about non-LDS who are merely persistent in their views that the LDS church is "wrong," then I say you really can't pound em. The LDS church has way too many missionaries out there trying to convert others this way.

I served in a very Russian Orthodox region. I certainly didn't go on and on about how wrong the Orthodox Church is. It would have been a pointless excersize. There was a Jehovah's Witness who tried to convince us that their church is right, because the Orthodox do this, this and that. He couldn't tellme how that made his church right.

[Law22]

Notice that the question here is a misquote. For the 1838 account of his vision, Joseph reported being told that creeds were an abomination. Elsewhere, he explained exactly what made them so, from my essay in RBBM 7/2,

This is why Joseph Smith opposed creeds, not because they are false teachings,²⁸ but because "creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further'; which I cannot subscribe to."²⁹ The message of the First Vision is not that a true creed had come to replace the false ones, but that the heavens had opened. You don't need to worship at a cistern when you've got a fountain (see Jeremiah 2:13). Creeds tend to create rigid background expectations which become "abominable" by promoting static authoritarianism that resists further light and knowledge.³⁰ This is not to say that we should bow without resistance to every wind of doctrine that happens to blow by (Ephesians 4:11-16), but that resistance to new ideas should be just as carefully considered as acceptance of such (Acts 10:9-28). Too often, creeds buy present conformity (as when the Inquisitors came to chat with Galileo about astronomy, torture, and correct thinking) with the coin of future faith (such as those for whom the Galileo incident becomes the defining myth of the relationship between science and religion).³¹ Creeds make for spiritual vulnerability in those whose cisterns are too brittle to change shape and too fragile to take shocks.³²

...

Again, Joseph Smith opposed creeds, not because they are false teachings,¹⁸¹ but because "creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further'; which I cannot subscribe to."

The most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some particular creed, which deprived its members [of] the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.

182

Joseph said of the creeds that "all of them have some truth." He also said "It dont [sic] prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine"; Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center Monograph, 1980), 183-84. So it's not a matter of lack of truth or even of false beliefs. Rigid creeds prevent repentence. What could be more abominable than that?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Although I'm a bit shy about questioning you Kevin, as you are quite obviously one of the most knowledgeable guys here, and strictly speaking you are absolutely correct when you correct me here, as I understand it, when Joseph asked what church he should join, he was told that he shouldn't join any of the churches because their creeds were an abomination. How am I to then conclude that it was merely the creeds, and not all the churches, that were an abomination? Weren't the churches all an abomination by definition?

[Law22]

I served in a very Russian Orthodox region. I certainly didn't go on and on about how wrong the Orthodox Church is. It would have been a pointless excersize. There was a Jehovah's Witness who tried to convince us that their church is right, because the Orthodox do this, this and that. He couldn't tellme how that made his church right.

I understand that the LDS missionary purposefully does not spend their time telling the potential convert all the ways their church is wrong. Indeed, the missionary is specifically trained not to do that at MTC. However, they do spend their time telling the potential convert all the ways the LDS church is right, and in the end, the result is the same.

[Kevin Christensen]

It was very easy for me to discover how Joseph Smith understood the problem with creeds. I just had to find out what he said about it, rather than jumping to a conclusion and sticking to it no matter what. Rather than adopting my first thought as the obvious, unchangeable, certain, uninterpreted absorbtion of raw truth, and making a lifelong, unchangeable creed, I learned better.

Simple, I think.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited May 25, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[volgadon]

I understand that the LDS missionary purposefully does not spend their time telling the potential convert all the ways their church is wrong. Indeed, the missionary is specifically trained not to do that at MTC. However, they do spend their time telling the potential convert all the ways the LDS church is right, and in the end, the result is the same.

Sheesh.

We focus on what is right about our message. How would you preach as a missionary to, say, a Hindu?

[Maureen]

...Examples of mere critics would be Harold Bloom and Jan Shipps....

I'm curious as to why you've described Jan Shipps as a critic, a critic of what?

M.

[KevinG]

I like that one too. But what to do with the "all other churches are an abomination" stuff?

Put down the censured McConkey talks and the 19th century polemics Brigham used to respond to those who wished Mormons dead and pick up Preach My Gospel.

I'll even spot you the Joseph Smith History in context. Please study the whole thing and not just the offending sentence.

My personal approach is to celebrate the similarities and acknowledge the differences. My relationships with Catholics and Baptists are very positive and they know something about my belief in Christ's Atonement that they did not know from anti-Mormon or critical sources. Because I listen to them I know much about their beliefs I didn't previously know. While we differ on our beliefs of whose religion is ultimately authoritative we can grow to understand we are all trying to achieve the same things.

the oft used defense for offensiveness on the part of "critics" is that the LDS fired the first shot with the single line Joseph Smith History that describes the creeds of the contentious religious factions were an abomination in God's sight. I call bulldroppings on this.

A definitive statement of differences is no justification for decades of misrepresentation, insulting caricatures, exclusion from the self-defined Christian world and yes real persecution.

If someone is offended by the mere descriptive term anti (opposed to) Mormon (adherents of restorationist faiths that believe the Book of Mormon to be scripture) then they can look at their own behavior and contemplate why it is that Mormons describe them as "opposed to what they believe".

Anti-Mormon is much more civil than many of the terms used to describe my faith. Hell bound, cultist, devil-worshiper, etc. The attempt to dumb down the definition as demonetization of critics is merely an attempt to control the discussion and leave defenders of the faith looking like the bad guys for sticking up for their beliefs. The ultimate goal is to get those pesky Mormons to shut up. This however will never happen because Christ specifically called us to share the fullness of the Gospel as He revealed it to us with the world.

In any discussion of religion or missionary effort there will be differences. That is never a justification for missionaries to be rude and arrogant (a position I am very critical of in the rare instances where it occurs) or for those who disagree with Mormonism to justify calumny and underhanded tactics.

[Jaybear]

Notice that the question here is a misquote. For the 1838 account of his vision, Joseph reported being told that creeds were an abomination. Elsewhere, he explained exactly what made them so, from my essay in RBBM 7/2,

Actually, that is not what he reported.

More precisely, he reported being told that "their" creeds were an abomination.

Ordinarily you can't remove the word "their" from a sentence without materially changing the meaning of the sentence.

Seems rather lazy of you do it here, without disclosing that you have done so, and explaining why the word "their" has no meaning.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Jaybear

[Kevin Christensen]

Actually, that is not what he reported.

More precisely, he reported being told that "their" creeds were an abomination.

Ordinarily you can't remove the word "their" from a sentence without materially changing the meaning of the sentence.

Seems rather lazy of you do it here, without disclosing that you have done so, and explaining why the word "their" has no meaning.

Yep. I was too tired to type "their." I wasn't too tired to identify the source as the 1838 account. And you have enough energy to point out that I left out the "their" there.

For completeness, "their" refers to "the sects" whose claims Joseph Smith was considering, and had asked which he should join. (JS:18-19). It was their creeds that were deemed abominable for the reasons that Joseph Smith clearly explained, and which I have quoted many times over the years.

All better now?

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Jaybear]

Yep. I was too tired to type "their." I wasn't too tired to identify the source as the 1838 account. And you have enough energy to point out that I left out the "their" there.

For completeness, "their" refers to "the sects" whose claims Joseph Smith was considering, and had asked which he should join. (JS:18-19). It was their creeds that were deemed abominable for the reasons that Joseph Smith clearly explained, and which I have quoted many times over the years.

Not really. In your thesis, you explained why Jospeph Smith "opposed creeds," as a general concept, not why the personage assumed to be Jesus found "their creeds", to be an abomination. Their, of course, referring to all other religious "sects."

FWIW, I concede that its possible that this personage, like Smith, hated all creeds, and therefore by necessity hated "their" creeds, but that is clumsy use of the English language.

[KevinG]

...which of course does not excuse clumsy use of LDS doctrines or beliefs on the part of those who are habitually criticizing the church.

I question the motives of anyone who seeks to emphasize the divide rather than bridge the gaps with the common beliefs in Christ and the Atonement. I think I know why some critics (and anti=Mormons) are so eager to unduly emphasize one line out of millions of teachings and portray it in its harshest possible interpretation. The reasons are not pretty or uplifting.

Edited May 25, 2012 by KevinG

[Scott Lloyd]

After reading all of the posts in this thread, I'm left to wonder if LDS are right to so vilify the "anti." Is it the message the anti brings or is it the manner in which it is brought? If it's the message, it hardly seems fair for the LDS church to take the "one true church" position, together with the "all other churches are an abomination" stuff, and then get upset when non-LDS disagrees with you.

And here is where I differentiate between those who merely disagree with Mormonism and those who outright oppose it. It is the latter whom I regard as anti-Mormon.

[Calm]

. FAIR is a serious academic site, so it's publications are primarily addressed to the critic, not the "anti".

FAIR's audience is not primarily critics, it is meant for believers and those in crisis and all between, we are there to help people, not to debate critics for our own benefit. It is also meant to be a 'clearing house' for information for those who lack the time or inclination for the more academic stuff.

[Calm]

I'm curious as to why you've described Jan Shipps as a critic, a critic of what?

M.

Criticism can be for the purpose of analysis, instead pointing out what is wrong with something.

[Calm]

I understand that the LDS missionary purposefully does not spend their time telling the potential convert all the ways their church is wrong. Indeed, the missionary is specifically trained not to do that at MTC. However, they do spend their time telling the potential convert all the ways the LDS church is right, and in the end, the result is the same.

Not really. The end result to teaching what is right is a convert, the end result to teaching what is wrong is an apostate.

[zerinus]

FAIR's audience is not primarily critics, it is meant for believers and those in crisis and all between, we are there to help people, not to debate critics for our own benefit. It is also meant to be a 'clearing house' for information for those who lack the time or inclination for the more academic stuff.

Does FAIR attempt to distinguish between Mormon critics and anti-Mormons, and address each accordingly?

[Calm]

Not really. We treat all who ask questions as sincere seekers of truth. A few who wish to argue or debate us are either politely responded to with a "no thanks" or someone might personally respond if they are interested in the subject, but FAIR tries to give all who write FAIR with questions and suggestions the benefit of the doubt.

If you mean do we identify anti-Mormons as opposed to straight forward critics (either the disagreeing or analytical academic variety)in our writings, yes, where appropriate.

[followerofemmanuel]

Until recently it had the word apologetics in the title, it was Mormon Apologetics & Discussion IIRC.

Cool, I did not know that I found this by googling, "discussions/talking with Mormons". I wanted to learn about LDS beliefs and how they related to my understanding of Christianity and what differences and similarities we share. I just realized my comment is off topic..sorry folks.

Edited May 26, 2012 by followerofemmanuel

[Law22]

Not really. The end result to teaching what is right is a convert, the end result to teaching what is wrong is an apostate.

Does that go both ways - say, from Baptist to LDS and from LDS to Baptist?

[followerofemmanuel]

Notice that the question here is a misquote. For the 1838 account of his vision, Joseph reported being told that creeds were an abomination. Elsewhere, he explained exactly what made them so, from my essay in RBBM 7/2,

This is why Joseph Smith opposed creeds, not because they are false teachings,²⁸ but because "creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further'; which I cannot subscribe to."²⁹ The message of the First Vision is not that a true creed had come to replace the false ones, but that the heavens had opened. You don't need to worship at a cistern when you've got a fountain (see Jeremiah 2:13). Creeds tend to create rigid background expectations which become "abominable" by promoting static authoritarianism that resists further light and knowledge.³⁰ This is not to say that we should bow without resistance to every wind of doctrine that happens to blow by (Ephesians 4:11-16), but that resistance to new ideas should be just as carefully considered as acceptance of such (Acts 10:9-28). Too often, creeds buy present conformity (as when the Inquisitors came to chat with Galileo about astronomy, torture, and correct thinking) with the coin of future faith (such as those for whom the Galileo incident becomes the defining myth of the relationship between science and religion).³¹ Creeds make for spiritual vulnerability in those whose cisterns are too brittle to change shape and too fragile to take shocks.³²

...

Again, Joseph Smith opposed creeds, not because they are false teachings,¹⁸¹ but because "creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further'; which I cannot subscribe to."

The most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some particular creed, which deprived its members [of] the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.

182

Joseph said of the creeds that "all of them have some truth." He also said "It dont [sic] prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine"; Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center Monograph, 1980), 183-84. So it's not a matter of lack of truth or even of false beliefs. Rigid creeds prevent repentence. What could be more abominable than that?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Helpful information...thanks

[Calm]

Does that go both ways - say, from Baptist to LDS and from LDS to Baptist?

Of course.

A Baptist or LDS who teaches someone what he believes is the true gospel is intent on and may result in a conversion; a Baptist or LDS who teaches what they believe is wrong with another's faith may help deconvert the individual but has given nothing to result in a new faith.

Edited May 26, 2012 by calmoriah

[Law22]

It was very easy for me to discover how Joseph Smith understood the problem with creeds. I just had to find out what he said about it, rather than jumping to a conclusion and sticking to it no matter what. Rather than adopting my first thought as the obvious, unchangeable, certain, uninterpreted absorbtion of raw truth, and making a lifelong, unchangeable creed, I learned better.

Simple, I think.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Or you could just read the man's quote:

"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight (Joseph Smith History 1:19).