Professional Antimormons' Efforts: Do They Achieve Their Aims?

[cdowis]

Another important "aim" for antis of any persuasion is to intercept those who might be inquiring about the faith they oppose. It would be pretty difficult to gauge how successful they may be in that way.

 

Youtube is full of that == what to ask the Mormons when they knock on your door, etc.  Don't mind the questions, but some are loaded questions, and they go on to give the "answers".

 

Because of forum rules, I can't give links to the best of the best.  I especially love the "Why I left the church" == some real tear jerkers.  These exmormon stories are published by the same group that we know so well and love.

 

Many of them are high quality, similar to the quality of our "I am a Mormon" videos with one time exception, they usually don't tell anything about their personal life and where they are finding their joy in life now that they have left the church.  Except some admit they they are happy after being freed from the constraints of the church rules.

Edited May 22, 2014 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

A paranoid Schizophrenic may consider himself perfectly sane and the rest of the world quite bonkers. Perhaps he is correct, but just because he labels himself sane, does not make it so.

To be a professional one must be paid for the work one is doing. There is implied a strong measure of competency and success in the label ' professional ' . By those criteria can we label the Tanners ( now just Mrs. Tanner ) professional_____________?????

According to Sandra, she is just the messenger or she also says, she is a whistleblower. She said that there wouldn't need to be people like the Tanners if the church didn't hide history.

I wouldn't call her a professional, just as she says, a messenger. I believe it started out that her deceased husband was honest to a fault and had to set the record straight. She admitted they aren't very educated and understands that some of their work looked bad with some wording being all caps, etc. I guess to emphasize, but ended up looking unprofessional.

She doesn't do it all alone, and there are lots of people that donate in order to keep it going.

[danielwoods]

Of course not.  They are the masters of obfuscation and rhetoric ==>> they have a "ministry".  They have received a calling to witness to the Mormons.  That makes it sound so ......Christian.

 

They give speeches in churches, publish SS manuals to inform Christians of the dangers of the cults.  My daughter attended a SS class (they did not know she was Mormon) and she was shocked to hear what they were saying about us.  When I called the minister, he gave somewhat of an apology and said they were just using the curriculum texts published by their organization.  The churches then "support" their ministry thru contributions, tax deductable, of course.

 

I have an annoying habit of calling it what it is.

 

Your label is your opinion, not fact. Calling it what it is would be to describe fairly.

 

Do people make mistakes? Of course, we all do. 

 

Do sincere people make mistakes that sometimes hurt others? Of course, we all do. 

 

When people make mistakes that hurt other people, is it accurate to label them in such a negative light?

 

Is that what Jesus did? 

[cdowis]

"Is that what Jesus would do?"

 

Obviously you have not read very much in the New Testament.

[USU78]

I would contend there is no such thing as a "professional" anti-mormon, or mormon.

 

Contend away:  Sandra and Jerold got their living wage (they had no other jobs) from the Utah Lighthouse Ministry . . . an anti-Mormon ministry by its very definition and function . . . which was and is funded by anti-Mormons supportive of its mission.

 

If that ain't being professional, no one anywhere is professional.

[strappinglad]

"Is that what Jesus would do?"

 

Obviously you have not read very much in the New Testament.

Jesus was not above calling some people " whited sepulchres " Now that is a serious 'label' if I ever heard one.

[The Nehor]

What would you call someone who makes their money from creating and selling anti-LDS material, like the Tanners?

 

Professional Jackass

Professional Time Waster

Professional Damnation Facilitator

Professional Git

 

There are lots of good names.

[The Nehor]

Your label is your opinion, not fact. Calling it what it is would be to describe fairly.

 

Do people make mistakes? Of course, we all do. 

 

Do sincere people make mistakes that sometimes hurt others? Of course, we all do. 

 

When people make mistakes that hurt other people, is it accurate to label them in such a negative light?

 

Is that what Jesus did? 

 

Yes.

 

Fools

Hypocrites

Fox

Generation of Vipers

Whited Sepulchre

Blind Guides

Pointing out people were spiritually filthy

Filled with wickedness

How will you escape being condemned to hell?

You're a pack of prophet-killers and deny it

Called the people in the temple thieves.

 

I am probably missing some. Jesus's best burns make me look nice.

[Ahab]

Their "aim", in some cases if not most is to right perceived wrongs. Just as many young televangelists start out wanted to do what they believe to be the right thing. Then reality sets in and they soon find that to reach a larger audience you need assistance from others. Soon money is collected, books ad papers are written and more notoriety is wanted. Then the day comes that it s learned that there is a profit to be made, and that I might be able to quit my job and do this for a living. So are ex-Mormons, some, never-mos, but one thing in most cases comes to past, I have got to be more cutting edge, if I want to continue. This is when many if not most become more aggressive, and more jugular in their approach. This is when the money starts to flow, be it in radio, books, websites, whatever.

Right out of the gate, after joining the Church in Germany, I was exposed to books and papers concerning Mormonism. The more I sought out materials about the Church, without looking I found anti-information (if you will). Upon retuning to the U.S., and growing up in the part of the country I did, the more I encounter those who loved me who out of concern wanted me to know what they had found. While at FT Benning, GA, I encountered a pilot who flew missions with me on medivac (I was a crew chief), who had designs after the Army to enter into full time ministry against Mormonism. Before long (and to address the OP) I had to approach my superior officers, on my own behalf and at the request of others (as all flights had to others on board) because they grew tired of his harassment over com likes while in flight. As a result of this and other circumstances, I was exposed to authors like the Tanners, Decker and John Smith of an anti-Mormon newspaper or letter that would always find it's way into my locker, aircraft or duffel bag.

Then comes the Internet and Walter Martin site, CARM, Mormon Discussions and the rabbit hole of money to be made...not just attacking Mormonism but many other faiths as well. But as with most it is the "Mormonism Forum" that leads the stable in traffic and donations. So to make it short finally...yes their efforts help our cause by creating sympathy in our behalf. It puts strain upon their own families and their crusades even take a toll within their families. It is sad.

Alright who are you and what did you do with Pa Pa?

He doesn't write like you did. At least not usually.

[danielwoods]

Contend away:  Sandra and Jerold got their living wage (they had no other jobs) from the Utah Lighthouse Ministry . . . an anti-Mormon ministry by its very definition and function . . . which was and is funded by anti-Mormons supportive of its mission.

 

If that ain't being professional, no one anywhere is professional.

 

"Lighthouse Ministry" obviously their intent was to help people. Professional "anti" anything... that would be your view. 

 

My point is that their intent isn't to be "anti" or hateful as is presented here. 

[danielwoods]

Jesus was not above calling some people " whited sepulchres " Now that is a serious 'label' if I ever heard one.

 

It was a description of what he saw. Washed on the outside, but dead on the inside. 

 

The pharisees were also defending their "church" and system by labeling Jesus as a sinner. 

 

If you honestly think that there are professional anti-mormons then why is that none of the ones you all accuse of being such, don't call themselves that? 

 

What if they are simply people who believe they are following what the Spirit is telling them to do? 

[Storm Rider]

"Lighthouse Ministry" obviously their intent was to help people. Professional "anti" anything... that would be your view. 

 

My point is that their intent isn't to be "anti" or hateful as is presented here. 

 

I think you would have a stronger story IF Lighthouse Ministry and others did not distort the facts.  They do and they do it purposely.  That would fit several descriptions list of which is hateful. 

[danielwoods]

Yes.

 

Fools

Hypocrites

Fox

Generation of Vipers

Whited Sepulchre

Blind Guides

Pointing out people were spiritually filthy

Filled with wickedness

How will you escape being condemned to hell?

You're a pack of prophet-killers and deny it

Called the people in the temple thieves.

 

I am probably missing some. Jesus's best burns make me look nice.

 

Jesus's "burns" as you call them, were directed at those who were entrusted with the word of God. They put huge burdens on those who wanted to follow, yet didn't follow themselves. 

 

Did Jesus label people whose intent was to help people, as foolish and vipers, etc.? 

 

 

 

I think you would have a stronger story IF Lighthouse Ministry and others did not distort the facts.  They do and they do it purposely.  That would fit several descriptions list of which is hateful. 

 

How do you know they do so purposely? 

Edited May 22, 2014 by danielwoods

[Tacenda]

I think you would have a stronger story IF Lighthouse Ministry and others did not distort the facts. They do and they do it purposely. That would fit several descriptions list of which is hateful.

But how did they distort them SR? According to Sandra, they would post a lot of context, how do you distort when it's all there. Do you have instances? I read the letter USU78 recommended I read, it didn't have anything substantial that I recall. As she mentioned in one of the podcasts which btw, I doubt any have watched on this board, she said that if everything was available to everyone, there's no way anyone can distort when they have something to refer to.

[readstoomuch]

Grant Palmer. Ugh!!! Just plain wrong and unbalanced. His book was the one my daughter in law says made her stop believing. I hear it from the Mormon Stories crowd. He has led plenty of people from the Church. Whatever sins the Tanners had, they were much better researchers. I still recommend Lawrence Fosters review of the Tanners. Also Jonathon Cannons review of Hardy on RationalFaiths.

[Tacenda]

Grant Palmer. Ugh!!! Just plain wrong and unbalanced. His book was the one my daughter in law says made her stop believing. I hear it from the Mormon Stories crowd. He has led plenty of people from the Church. Whatever sins the Tanners had, they were much better researchers. I still recommend Lawrence Fosters review of the Tanners. Also Jonathon Cannons review of Hardy on RationalFaiths.

I'm sorry about your daughter in law, but can we only blame Grant, or like Sandra was he also a messenger, and like Jerald he just wants the truth out, now if you have instances where he lied outright, I'm all ears.

[The Nehor]

Jesus's "burns" as you call them, were directed at those who were entrusted with the word of God. They put huge burdens on those who wanted to follow, yet didn't follow themselves. 

 

Did Jesus label people whose intent was to help people, as foolish and vipers, etc.? 

The vast majority of Antimormons are ex-members. They do know better. They target the Lord's "little ones" (those weak in the faith or struggling) and the Lord's prescription for such involves a large millstone and deep sea diving with no other equipment so yes, I imagine Jesus would refer to them as foolish and vipers as He did similar people when He was alive. Read the Doctrine and Covenants to find out what The Lord thinks of those who try to lead the saints astray in this dispensation. He did not waste a lot of words pontificating on how these people were trying to help and should be treated as such. Nope, mostly stuff about damnation and hellfire.

They are the same as those Jesus insulted. They know the way to eternal life and do not follow it and try to lead others seeking it off the path. They are wicked. I am not going to pretend they are stupid enough to not know better so I can pretend they are not that bad.

[Calm]

"Lighthouse Ministry" obviously their intent was to help people. Professional "anti" anything... that would be your view. 

 

My point is that their intent isn't to be "anti" or hateful as is presented here.

I believe they have referred to themselves as anti-Mormon. If one searches their site, they talk about anti-Mormon writers addressing certain subjects and they themselves are talking about the same thing.

[Calm]

none of the ones you all accuse of being such, don't call themselves that?

CFR Edited May 22, 2014 by calmoriah

[readstoomuch]

Palmer is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Again, jonathon cannons review in rationalfaiths is the best article.

[Storm Rider]

Jesus's "burns" as you call them, were directed at those who were entrusted with the word of God. They put huge burdens on those who wanted to follow, yet didn't follow themselves. 

 

Did Jesus label people whose intent was to help people, as foolish and vipers, etc.? 

 

 

 

 

How do you know they do so purposely? 

 

Let's not be naive or silly.  These people are not stupid, ignorant, uninformed.

 

But how did they distort them SR? According to Sandra, they would post a lot of context, how do you distort when it's all there. Do you have instances? I read the letter USU78 recommended I read, it didn't have anything substantial that I recall. As she mentioned in one of the podcasts which btw, I doubt any have watched on this board, she said that if everything was available to everyone, there's no way anyone can distort when they have something to refer to.

 

Tacenda, it really goes back to Fawn B. What she chose to do in her writing is exclude information, references, and facts that conflicted with her stated thesis.  When you write for an agenda, something Brodie, Lighthouse Ministries, Bible Answer Man, etc. did/do, they consciously, knowingly forfeit objectivity, fairness, and most importantly honesty.  It is naive to assume that any of these groups are stupid or ignorant; they made a choice.  

 

I think the Tanners accomplished a lot of research, but they chose to present a slanted view of history and facts regarding the Restoration.  I have respect for their work, but I also understand their subjectivity.  

 

Tone and context also play a big role in being either honest or dishonest.  If I told you that there was a religious cult that wore magic talisman's around their neck that they believed protected them from demons, evil spirits, and all harm; that they gathered together to repeat set, memorized chants in unison while worshiping the flesh of their chosen god; that they kept the finger bones and skulls of their shaman's to hold up in their seances and/or kept behind glass enclosures for their members to see; that they made statues to represent these same shamans to fill their places of worship; that they also went so far as to eat their god's flesh and drink his blood; what would you think of such a group?  Would you think they were a viable group or something otherworldly and bizarre?  If I then said I was talking about the Catholic Church, is anything I have said wrong or incorrect?  It is the truth.....and it also has nothing to do with reality and/or could easily be clarified to put in the proper context of the liturgy and worship of our Catholic brothers and sisters.  

 

Each of the three entities I identified above fail the test of honest review. They each had a specific agenda that directed their writing and research.  They may have felt their forfeiting of honesty was valid if they could destroy the Church of Jesus Christ - the Mormon Cult.  I happen to believe that the end does not justify the means; I believe that honesty is the standard we use to evaluate all sources and that none of us should assume we can forfeit our own intellect when evaluating any source. 

Edited May 22, 2014 by Storm Rider

[cdowis]

If you honestly think that there are professional anti-mormons then why is that none of the ones you all accuse of being such, don't call themselves that? 

 

 

 

See #49

[Tacenda]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmeSmlHyDRU

 

Interesting youtube about control in religion.  Chris is the one that compared the BoM to the Late War.  He thinks Mormonism can use mind control like the JW's.  I disagree that it's as bad as that, but there are similarities.  I would hope the church could learn from them and not control like that.  I've been saying this for a long time, the sooner they get information out the better, the truth will set us free, the church can stand on that.  People will leave at first but come back if the church deals with this swiftly, yes it hurts at first, but I believe God when he says we need our free agency. 

 

I do love the high standards, but Hitler had high standards.  We cannot go by that only.  I know God's in our church though, there is something, I do feel and see it around me.  I don't want the anti's to win, and this board and it's openness to talk about it can teach the church a thing or two also.  We need to discuss openly, unlike the JW's that use fear.  I hope for a church like that, with all my might. 

 

Hitler? You are leaving the thread.

[Walden]

What she chose to do in her writing is exclude information, references, and facts that conflicted with her stated thesis. When you write for an agenda....[you] consciously, knowingly forfeit objectivity, fairness, and most importantly honesty.  It is naive to assume that any of these groups are stupid or ignorant; they made a choice......Storm Rider

 

Funny how this "distortion of facts" and "exclusion of information" is accepted, rationalized, condoned and excused by LDS supporters when applied to the church's handling of it's own history, but is pilloried, derided, criticized and lamented when it comes to critics use of the same tactics. Both sides have a "stated thesis" and both certainly have an agenda, but only the "anti's" are repugnant for their distortion of facts or selective exclusion of information?

 

Is it the spirit in which the information is presented that makes LDS tout some superiority in their presentation of distorted histories versus that of their adversaries? If so, I can guarantee you that the minister down the street is just as perplexed by the "distorted" version of LDS history and/or church facts that is being presented to his flock by LDS missionaries, neighbors, friends, etc. in their zeal to win over one of his churchgoers and convert them to mormonism.

 

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Walden

[danielwoods]

The vast majority of Antimormons are ex-members. They do know better. They target the Lord's "little ones" (those weak in the faith or struggling) and the Lord's prescription for such involves a large millstone and deep sea diving with no other equipment so yes, I imagine Jesus would refer to them as foolish and vipers as He did similar people when He was alive. Read the Doctrine and Covenants to find out what The Lord thinks of those who try to lead the saints astray in this dispensation. He did not waste a lot of words pontificating on how these people were trying to help and should be treated as such. Nope, mostly stuff about damnation and hellfire.

They are the same as those Jesus insulted. They know the way to eternal life and do not follow it and try to lead others seeking it off the path. They are wicked. I am not going to pretend they are stupid enough to not know better so I can pretend they are not that bad.

 

The only way they could be leading people astray is if they were preaching/teaching false things. And only wicked people knowingly teach false things.

 

You disagree with their view of what is true or not. That is fine, we all have disagreements. But, impugning their motives, in essence claiming that they knowingly teach false things is not even demonstrable. Unless you have some documentation where they admit to knowingly teaching false things?