The New Anti-Mormons Are Lds

[3DOP]

Fellow Catholic here. 3DOP is Catholic. More orthodox than the Pope! Which is the short synopsis of the problem he sees with the papacy. That is, the Pope should be as orthodox as the Popes, excluding the bad ones. This view of the papacy doesn't make him an apostate.

Apostasy for a Catholic requires very specific acts. Disagreeing with the Pope, and speaking out against the papacy, isn't one of them.

Hi saemo...

 

Thanks a lot for coming to my defense. You have understood my mind. I am grateful.

 

Yours in Jesus and Mary,

 

Rory

[rodheadlee]

Thanks Rory. The truth is a bitter pill to the rebellious.

[omni]

It leaves me bewildered and in a way dismayed, to see Mormons doubtful and critical of Mormonism for all the wrong reasons.

Rory

So then what are the right reasons to be critical of Mormonism?

[CV75]

It used to be, not that long ago, that so-called anti-Mormons were the only ones who asked the questions on this board that self-professed Mormons are asking today.

Some of you remember and participated in answering the non-LDS anti-Mormons who used to frequent this board and ZLMB before it, with gusto and sound reason. But it is almost as thought they slipped into your own camp and are identifying themselves as LDS. Your own people are asking about and complaining of the same lame stuff that has been answered satisfactorily many times. As a non-LDS who has been around LDS sites for almost as long as there have been sites, it bewilders me how distrustful and disrespectful supposedly devout Latter-day Saints now seem to feel about the leadership of those who they say are the Apostles of Jesus Christ.

 

It seems like a sea-change to me. That is because it seems like you used to do such a good job of answering your critics. But now that your critics are Mormon...It leaves me bewildered and in a way dismayed, to see Mormons doubtful and critical of Mormonism for all the wrong reasons.

 

Rory

I appreciate your observation and I think it has a great deal of merit. But in the case of anonymous posters like myself, one really can’t tell who is “anti-“, apostate, or faithful or just pretending or claiming to be… you can’t read a soul by his avatar/persona.

 

Personally, syntax leads me to conclude that some posters are not what they present themselves to be even on a personal level, but that doesn’t matter; their posts can still be addressed. Their points are the same no matter the source / purported source or how they represent themselves. Citing credentials (including LDS membership) that cannot be verified and then to use it to drive a point actually undermines it; neither is it the most intellectually honest approach to take for constructive discussion. My approach is to treat relevant discussion points (and credentials of the anonymous are not relevant) at face value.

 

In the case of known persons, I think their points also have to stand on their own merits despite clearly having LDS membership or other credentials.

 

I think resorting to or assessing one’s LDS membership status, or how faithful or inspired he is – either by the poster or by the reader – is used (intentionally or not) to undermine a fair exchange of ideas. But a lot of faulty practices slip into our dialogue all the time!

[stemelbow]

There persists an issue that I'd like to see more and more done away with, but progress has been made.

We tend to assume like the OP. Asking questions, addressing issues is somehow opposed to the Church, is somehow personally assaulting the leaders of the Church. I like the attempted openness of the church these days. I say forget the "thinking has been done" stuff. Forget the "its evil speaking of the Lord's anointed to question an idea forwarded by a leader". Forget the "its most noble to not ask lest we lack faith, bringing embarrassment and condemnation on to the heads of the whole family" type of notions.

let's put that behind us. Stop attacking each other and openly discuss what we actually feel and think.

[stemelbow]

I do not believe that anyone can ruin the Catholic Church, and I hope I have been prudent with regards to my defense of the Catholic Church before Pope Francis. I am keenly conscious of the fact that this is an LDS board and I try to refrain from sharing my misgivings of his reign to those times when someone LDS praises Francis for what is in effect, a criticism of the Catholic Church as she has been for nearly 2,000 years. I don't think you will discover that I started any threads on the subject. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that it is possible, I have failed in this and have instead gone "on and on".

 

I will not sit quiet for glowing "praise" of a kind of Catholicism that is limited to the papacy of Francis. Such "praise" is in my opinion, the harshest criticism of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that I am determined to defend . But I will be more careful in the future to make sure I do not speak my mind except when prompted. 

 

Rory

Nah speak your mind, but realize many LDS will want to do the same regarding their church and religion. We too can disagree with leaders opinions. We too can discuss and question assumptions that are held by and large by LDS people.

[CA Steve]

There is a lot of irony in a non-member, who is well informed about Mormonism, criticizing members for being critical.

[thesometimesaint]

I do not believe that anyone can ruin the Catholic Church, and I hope I have been prudent with regards to my defense of the Catholic Church before Pope Francis. I am keenly conscious of the fact that this is an LDS board and I try to refrain from sharing my misgivings of his reign to those times when someone LDS praises Francis for what is in effect, a criticism of the Catholic Church as she has been for nearly 2,000 years. I don't think you will discover that I started any threads on the subject. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that it is possible, I have failed in this and have instead gone "on and on".

 

I will not sit quiet for glowing "praise" of a kind of Catholicism that is limited to the papacy of Francis. Such "praise" is in my opinion, the harshest criticism of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that I am determined to defend . But I will be more careful in the future to make sure I do not speak my mind except when prompted. 

 

Rory   

 

William "Bill" Shakespeare summed it  pretty well some 400 years ago.

"The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones".

William Shakespeare

[Ahab]

Like what else am I supposed to do about anti-Mormon type comments?

I still speak up when I see that someone is wrong on the internet and I think I can say something that will do them some good.

It's just that there does come a point when all that can be said has already been said and heard.

[DBMormon]

Personally I find much of what is said here in this thread as balck and white thinking and to make it us vs them and not try to understand the why people are asking tough questions and why others are demanding to be heard and to be understood simply falls short.  I find it funny that if I criticize a teaching that I deem false, I am lambasted here, but if many of you criticize other members who are in good standing whom you have no stewardship for...... well that seems mighty ok in your mind.  Personally I see it as a spectrum and for many they have felt betrayed and their trust is lost and they simply want to be understood and be heard and be validated.  But very few of the majority ever take time to do that.  rather we march on, label them tares, and defend every jot and tittle.

Edited October 2, 2014 by DBMormon

[stemelbow]

Personally I find much of what is said here in this thread as balck and white thinking and to make it us vs them and not try to understand the why people are asking tough questions and why others are demanding to be heard and to be understood simply falls short.  I find it funny that if I criticize a teaching that I deem false, I am lambasted here, but if many of you criticize other members who are in good standing whom you have no stewardship for...... well that seems mighty ok in your mind.  Personally I see it as a spectrum and for many they have felt betrayed and their trust is lost and they simply want to be understood and be heard and be validated.  But very few of the majority ever take time to do that.  rather we march on, label them tares, and defend every jot and tittle.

Agreed. Said better than I did a few posts up.

[Ahab]

Personally I find much of what is said here in this thread as balck and white thinking and to make it us vs them and not try to understand the why people are asking tough questions and why others are demanding to be heard and to be understood simply falls short. I find it funny that if I criticize a teaching that I deem false, I am lambasted here, but if many of you criticize other members who are in good standing whom you have no stewardship for...... well that seems mighty ok in your mind. Personally I see it as a spectrum and for many they have felt betrayed and their trust is lost and they simply want to be understood and be heard and be validated. But very few of the majority ever take time to do that. rather we march on, label them tares, and defend every jot and tittle.

Everything is either Mormon (or Mormon-friendly) vs anti-Mormon (or opposed to all things Mormon or Mormon-friendly. Whatever you say when you want to be understood and heard and validated. Every time you open your mouth or type on a keyboard. You are on one side or the other, even if you switch back and forth from one side to the other.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I have visited the "Snufferite" groups lately on Facebook and if you believe it is people posing as LDS, you need to think again. Many LDS on all different levels of activity are saying "Hey, wait a minute! Something doesn't smell right about this or that". I think you are seeing more LDS being more open with their questions because the shame of having questions or alternative interpretations of scripture or doctrine is going by the wayside, and more and more members are less afraid of the dreaded Disciplinary Counsel.

Edited October 2, 2014 by BookofMormonLuvr

[cinepro]

My initial thoughts:  

 

2)  Claiming to be LDS and being LDS are two wholly separate things.  If an individual claims he is Catholic but rejects the doctrine and/or teachings of the Eucharist, sacraments, and Apostolic succession is s/he still a Catholic?  I would say no.  We have some participants here that may still claim to be LDS, but I suspect are firmly in the thrall of rebellion and apostasy.

Sorry, but you don't get to have it both ways.

 

If someone is counted as a member of the Church when the Church claims to have "15,082,086" members, then that person is "LDS". 

 

You can categorize the different members however you want, but until the Church is willing to qualify that number with activity rates and other criteria, there is no difference. 

 

Even if someone is "in the thrall of rebellion and apostasy", until they resign or are ex'd, they get to say "I'm LDS" just as much as President Monson does, and it's up to everyone else to figure out what that means.

Edited October 2, 2014 by cinepro

[VideoGameJunkie]

I think it's ok to ask questions every now and then to search for truth, otherwise you're always just going on blind faith and that's what the Book of Mormon broadway musical mocked in the song "I Believe". The line goes "A Mormon just believes."

[Ahab]

I think it's ok to ask questions every now and then to search for truth, otherwise you're always just going on blind faith and that's what the Book of Mormon broadway musical mocked in the song "I Believe". The line goes "A Mormon just believes."

It's one thing to ask questions and it's another thing to make statements. Asking questions while trying to consider all of the possibilities someone can think of to ask is a good thing to do before making personal statements of belief, but making statements to show which way you're leaning is a good thing only when you're leaning in the right direction, which is toward all good things, which is in the good Mormon direction. And an anti-Mormon is a bad Mormon, or no Mormon at all, and that is not a good thing.

[why me]

Orthopraxy is the emphasis in Mormonism, nor orthodoxy.

But the turnover of beliefs started decades ago, and maybe has accelerated over the last decade. What people on this site call folk doctrine,I was taught as God's truth straight from the prophets. That was a long time ago, before the almighty internet. I came to the conclusion within the last two years or so, that Mormonism is something different for every Mormon. There are few defined teachings that every member is expected to believe. All else is very wide open to personal interpretation and that seems to be ok, as long as the line isn't crossed, the one that Martha Beck called the 11th commandment. Thou shalt not commit publicity.

I remember being taught about limbo when I was in catechism. I still remember as a boy, my mom's friends fretting over a baby dying before baptism. What to say about all the poor catholic parents whose baby died before the christening? And now I have met catholics who no longer believe in hell and they tell me that hell was never a place. But I remember it differently. I must also say that catholicism is different for every catholic. And why not? We all take from a faith based on our own need. I have always found it amazing whether on this board or the catholic board how you lump all mormons together as one great monolith.

[Avatar4321]

I have visited the "Snufferite" groups lately on Facebook and if you believe it is people posing as LDS, you need to think again. Many LDS on all different levels of activity are saying "Hey, wait a minute! Something doesn't smell right about this or that". I think you are seeing more LDS being more open with their questions because the shame of having questions or alternative interpretations of scripture or doctrine is going by the wayside, and more and more members are less afraid of the dreaded Disciplinary Counsel.

what do the snufferite groups have to do with anything?

and people have never had to fear asking questions at church. Quite the opposite, they are encouraged. The Lord wants us to understand the gospel and hat comes with asking.

the restored gospel smells as beautiful as it always has, it's. The wolves in sheeps clothing that smell bad.

[why me]

You really have to get over this delusion that you have that everybody wants "to be like Brigham."  If I didn't have SOME connection to Mormonism, why would I spend countless hours trying to tear down THIS faith?  Why wouldn't I go after one of the "Big Boys" -- Catholicism, Islam, Scientology?  Seriously, why would I bother with an otherwise insignificant portion of the religious world, and on a board with limited participation (and active ... and extremely good-looking ... moderators)?

 

People spend time for many reasons. Some claim to be members with a temple recommend and bash the lds church. Others are active members who defend the church. Others are exmembers who bring up all sorts of mormon related things usually in a negative light. And others are nonmembers who just have an interest in mormonism.

 

Of course, membethers who are active would find it a little strange that an active member would constantly bring up the same issues as the critics to hightlight the perceived negative. I think that what is irking some members now is the high number of posts by those claiming to be active who seem to follow the critic line so that the apologists not only need to address the critics but also the acitve member who argues like a critic. So, who can post about mormonism?

 

1. active lds who make critic arguments.

2. active lds who defend the lds church

3. exmembers who have a bone to pick with the church.

4. nonmembers who have an interest in the lds fiath.

5. Exmembers claiming to be active who have critic understandings and leanings.

 

All can post many posts a day.

Edited October 2, 2014 by why me

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I appreciate your observation and I think it has a great deal of merit. But in the case of anonymous posters like myself, one really can’t tell who is “anti-“, apostate, or faithful or just pretending or claiming to be… you can’t read a soul by his avatar/persona.

 

Personally, syntax leads me to conclude that some posters are not what they present themselves to be even on a personal level, but that doesn’t matter; their posts can still be addressed. Their points are the same no matter the source / purported source or how they represent themselves. Citing credentials (including LDS membership) that cannot be verified and then to use it to drive a point actually undermines it; neither is it the most intellectually honest approach to take for constructive discussion. My approach is to treat relevant discussion points (and credentials of the anonymous are not relevant) at face value.

 

In the case of known persons, I think their points also have to stand on their own merits despite clearly having LDS membership or other credentials.

 

I think resorting to or assessing one’s LDS membership status, or how faithful or inspired he is – either by the poster or by the reader – is used (intentionally or not) to undermine a fair exchange of ideas. But a lot of faulty practices slip into our dialogue all the time!

 

Most of the times when I see mormon credentials pop-up in an argument it is in direct response to a challenge to a posters faithfulness. In other words, the "faithful defender" claims someone else must be an atheist because of their views, or an anti-mormon (reference any thread here on the flood, evolution, or same-sex marriage). 

[why me]

why spend countless hours tearing down any faith? Wouldn't building faith be a much better use of time?

Especially if one is an active member of that faith. I think that the problem that some active lds are experiencing on this board can be tiring. It is one thing to defend the church against critics. But when one has to defend the lds church against those also claiming to be active, it can get to be rather tiring and exasperating. Ten years ago this board was a FAIR board. We had some great apologists posting here but now most have flown the coop. Now, we have members battling members over whether the leaders are really god's chosen. Times change.

[stemelbow]

Everything is either Mormon (or Mormon-friendly) vs anti-Mormon (or opposed to all things Mormon or Mormon-friendly. Whatever you say when you want to be understood and heard and validated. Every time you open your mouth or type on a keyboard. You are on one side or the other, even if you switch back and forth from one side to the other.

since there are millions of Mormons, one can, while disagreeing with a Mormon completely support the notion of another Mormon. Thus, anything can both be Mormon-friendly and opposed to Mormon.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

what do the snufferite groups have to do with anything?

and people have never had to fear asking questions at church. Quite the opposite, they are encouraged. The Lord wants us to understand the gospel and hat comes with asking.

the restored gospel smells as beautiful as it always has, it's. The wolves in sheeps clothing that smell bad.

 

1) Because this topic is about LDS members starting to question the church and it's leaders. They are a perfect case study in that. Many of those beginning to follow Snuffer's counsel are Temple Recommend carrying currently active LDS with callings. I think many are underestimating the scale and momentum the Snuffer movement is beginning to take on. It is larger than I had anticipated.

2) Encouraged, as long as the questions aren't too involved and the explanations accepted without too much follow-up.

3) Agreed, the Restored Gospel is a sweet as the sweetest rose.

Edited October 2, 2014 by BookofMormonLuvr

[DBMormon]

Everything is either Mormon (or Mormon-friendly) vs anti-Mormon (or opposed to all things Mormon or Mormon-friendly. Whatever you say when you want to be understood and heard and validated. Every time you open your mouth or type on a keyboard. You are on one side or the other, even if you switch back and forth from one side to the other.

I couldn't disagree more.  

[Ahab]

since there are millions of Mormons, one can, while disagreeing with a Mormon completely support the notion of another Mormon. Thus, anything can both be Mormon-friendly and opposed to Mormon.

No, wait, you're trying to confuse me, aren't you.

I was talking about all things Mormon in the same context that Joseph Smith often talked about what it is. It consists of all that is true and good, truth revealed by our Father and correctly deduced from scientific discovery. All things true and good, whether they are taught only by our church or also taught by another organization anywhere, and whether so-called religious or secular knowledge.

One Mormon who teaches something that is false doesn't make what he is teaching Mormon. It's Mormon only if it is true and good.