CA Steve Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 As I read through the many threads here wherein, on one hand, we LDS are defending ourselves as Christians while on the other hand we are defining others, even those claiming to be LDS, as "Anti-Mormon", I get a sense that some of us want it both ways. Why should we be able to claim the right to define ourselves as Christians and at the same time insist that those who do not agree with our personal definition of what constitutes a Mormon are "Anti-Mormon"? I believe that if we insist on the right to includes ourselves as Christians (rightly so IMO) we should also allow our fellow LDS members the right to define themselves as Mormons even though we do not agree with them as to what defines Mormonism. Furthermore I believe the term "Anti-Mormon does not merely apply to anyone who disagrees with someone else personal definition of Mormonism, but should only be used when it is clear that those so labeled are only interested in the total destruction of the LDS Church. 1
tonie Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 Unfortunately, it appears, some feel it is their duty to toss about "anti-Mormon" at every oppurtunity, or the term "apostate". What is very disappointing with "defending" the Church, is that the defenders often resort to personal attacks against a alleged critic before addressing the substance of a claim. Then more disappointingly, personal attacks are found throughout remainder of the response. But what I have seen is defenders of the Church defend such personal attacks. 1
Avatar4321 Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 I'll make a deal, people stop attacking the church and I'll stop calling them anti mormons 2
Anakin7 Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 A perspective from one LDS observer [Not me] - http://www.yorkshiretales.com/allaboutmormonism/ In His Debt/Grace Anakin7
HappyJackWagon Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 Excellent OP. Many of the most dogmatic mormons seem to be the least compassionate, charitable, loving, tolerant, and inclusive Christians. Some will even wear my description as a badge of honor.
teddyaware Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) As I read through the many threads here wherein, on one hand, we LDS are defending ourselves as Christians while on the other hand we are defining others, even those claiming to be LDS, as "Anti-Mormon", I get a sense that some of us want it both ways. Why should we be able to claim the right to define ourselves as Christians and at the same time insist that those who do not agree with our personal definition of what constitutes a Mormon are "Anti-Mormon"? I believe that if we insist on the right to includes ourselves as Christians (rightly so IMO) we should also allow our fellow LDS members the right to define themselves as Mormons even though we do not agree with them as to what defines Mormonism. Furthermore I believe the term "Anti-Mormon does not merely apply to anyone who disagrees with someone else personal definition of Mormonism, but should only be used when it is clear that those so labeled are only interested in the total destruction of the LDS Church.What happens on this board is a poor indicator of what's going on in society in general. Here's the problem: I believe there are likely very few Latter-day Saints who visit non-LDS Christian discussion boards and websites in order to hurl accusations at non-LDS Christians that they are practitioners of apostate forms of Christianity. Most LDS Church members are not aggressive in this way and only when pushed will they turn to various forms of mild sarcasm or putdowns as a form of defense. Most Latter-day Saints don't hate non-LDS Churches because they know that these Churches offer some of the truth; have a positive influence on the attendees; that the attendees of these Churches have access to the light of Christ and answer to prayer; and that God loves these non-LDS people and will see to it that all of them eventually inherit one of the mansions in His heavenly kingdom of glory.In the meantime, there are a great many non-LDS Christians who literally hate the LDS Church and proactively visit both non-LDS and LDS discussion boards, web sites and even neutral news venues in order to preemptively strike first by gleefully and even sadistically condemning all Mormons to an endless hell of eternal misery for believing in "false prophets," "false scripture," "false doctrines" and "damnable heresies." We are not at all on an even playing field because most Mormons do want to preach the message of the Restored Gospel but simultaneously also believe strongly in a charitable live and let live philosophy. If non-LDS Christians don't accept the message of the Restored Gospel, well "maybe we'll catch you on another day." But contrarily, a great many non-LDS Christians cannot wait to hurtfully belittle and snidely ridicule all the Latter-day Saints hold most sacred and dear.Do you know any latter-day Saints who spend time visiting web sites to damn, ridicule and condemn to an endless hell of suffering those who don't believe as they do? I sure don't know any of this sort. The comparison you make is tantamount to condemning a person who's been bullied for months and finally strikes back in righteous retribution. Edited October 16, 2014 by teddyaware 2
CA Steve Posted October 16, 2014 Author Posted October 16, 2014 What happens on this board is a poor indicator of what's going on in society in general. Here's the problem: I believe there are likely very few Latter-day Saints who visit non-LDS Christian discussion boards and websites in order to hurl accusations at non-LDS Christians that they are practitioners of apostate forms of Christianity. Most LDS Church members are not aggressive and only when pushed will they turn to various forms of mild sarcasm or putdowns as a form of defense. I think I was pretty clear in directing my OP to what is being said on this board and not society in general so feel free to start a thread on what happens on other boards or society in general. Most Latter-day Saints don't hate non-LDS Churches because they know that these Churches offer some of the truth; have a positive influence on the attendees; that the attendees of these Churches have access to the light of Christ and answer to prayer; and that God loves these non-LDS people and will see to it that all of them eventually inherit one of the mansions in God's heavenly kingdom of glory. I agree but this has nothing to do with my OP.In the meantime, there are a great many non-LDS Christians who proactively visit both non-LDS and LDS discussion boards and web sites and even neutral news venues in order to preemptively strike first by gleefully and even sadistically condemning all Mormons to an endless hell of eternal misery for believing in "false prophets," "false scripture," "false doctrines" and "damnable heresies." We are not at all on an even playing field because most Mormons do want to preach the message of the Restored Gospel but simultaneously also believe strongly in a charitable live and let live philosophy. If non-LDS Christians don't accept the message of the Restored Gospel, well maybe well catch you on another day. But contrarily, a great many non-LDS Christians cannot wait to gleefully belittle and snidely ridicule all the Latter-day Saints hold most sacred and dear. You will note that I did point out those who want to destroy the church can be classified as "Anti-Mormon".Do you know any latter-day Saints who spend time visiting web sites to damn, ridicule and condemn to an endless hell of suffering those who don't believe as they do? I sure don't know any of this sort. The comparison you make is tantamount to condemning a person who's been bullied for months and finally strikes back in righteous retribution. Again if you want to discuss what is going on with other sites feel free to go there in your own thread. You create a strawman of something I did not say. Perhaps you would like to comment on my OP which asks about us and why we ask the right to define ourselves as Christian but at the same time deny others, even within our own faith, the right to disagree with how we personally define Mormonism by labeling them as "Anti-Mormon". 1
HappyJackWagon Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 TeddyAware, I'm not sure you caught the intent of the OP. Mormons belittle other mormons by calling them anti-mormon or apostate fairly regularly. They belittle "unfaithful" questions, experiences or comments. I think that's what the OP was about. Most LDS Church members are not aggressive in this way and only when pushed will they turn to various forms of mild sarcasm or putdowns as a form of defense.This isn't my experience. I see members on boards like these get very defensive, dismissive and sarcastic very quickly when they feel like their worldview or POV is being threatened. This may not be your style but it is common to see among others.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 Some will even wear my description as a badge of honor.Wishful thinking if I ever saw it.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) This isn't my experience. I see members on boards like these get very defensive, dismissive and sarcastic very quickly when they feel like their worldview or POV is being threatened. This may not be your style but it is common to see among others.You see, it is always a one way street with you guys. It is only us that gets defensive. Except we aren't. And it is only use that is "threatened" when some one presents a different point of view. Expect it isn't threatening. What it is is wrong 1/2 the time. And I am here to defend what is right. And that means I take stances against things that are wrong. For instance, when certain poster says that "gay marriage will happen in the temple". Am I threatened by that? Nope. I am not threatened at all. You could take it that way but you would be wrong. I have an issue with this statement because it goes against core teachings of the church. Not because it is threatening. I am not all the big on labels per se. I find most of it not very useful. Edited October 16, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
teddyaware Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) What happens on this board is a poor indicator of what's going on in society in general. Here's the problem: I believe there are likely very few Latter-day Saints who visit non-LDS Christian discussion boards and websites in order to hurl accusations at non-LDS Christians that they are practitioners of apostate forms of Christianity. Most LDS Church members are not aggressive and only when pushed will they turn to various forms of mild sarcasm or putdowns as a form of defense. I think I was pretty clear in directing my OP to what is being said on this board and not society in general so feel free to start a thread on what happens on other boards or society in general. Most Latter-day Saints don't hate non-LDS Churches because they know that these Churches offer some of the truth; have a positive influence on the attendees; that the attendees of these Churches have access to the light of Christ and answer to prayer; and that God loves these non-LDS people and will see to it that all of them eventually inherit one of the mansions in God's heavenly kingdom of glory. I agree but this has nothing to do with my OP. In the meantime, there are a great many non-LDS Christians who proactively visit both non-LDS and LDS discussion boards and web sites and even neutral news venues in order to preemptively strike first by gleefully and even sadistically condemning all Mormons to an endless hell of eternal misery for believing in "false prophets," "false scripture," "false doctrines" and "damnable heresies." We are not at all on an even playing field because most Mormons do want to preach the message of the Restored Gospel but simultaneously also believe strongly in a charitable live and let live philosophy. If non-LDS Christians don't accept the message of the Restored Gospel, well maybe well catch you on another day. But contrarily, a great many non-LDS Christians cannot wait to gleefully belittle and snidely ridicule all the Latter-day Saints hold most sacred and dear. You will note that I did point out those who want to destroy the church can be classified as "Anti-Mormon". Do you know any latter-day Saints who spend time visiting web sites to damn, ridicule and condemn to an endless hell of suffering those who don't believe as they do? I sure don't know any of this sort. The comparison you make is tantamount to condemning a person who's been bullied for months and finally strikes back in righteous retribution. Again if you want to discuss what is going on with other sites feel free to go there in your own thread. You create a strawman of something I did not say. Perhaps you would like to comment on my OP which asks about us and why we ask the right to define ourselves as Christian but at the same time deny others, even within our own faith, the right to disagree with how we personally define Mormonism by labeling them as "Anti-Mormon". If you only wanted to discuss what goes on this board, why did you say, As I read through the many threads here wherein, on one hand, we LDS are defending ourselves as Christians while on the other hand we are defining others, even those claiming to be LDS, as "Anti-Mormon", I get a sense that some of us want it both ways. Why should we be able to claim the right to define ourselves as Christians and at the same time insist that those who do not agree with our personal definition of what constitutes a Mormon are "Anti-Mormon"? I believe that if we insist on the right to includes ourselves as Christians (rightly so IMO) we should also allow our fellow LDS members the right to define themselves as Mormons even though we do not agree with them as to what defines Mormonism. Furthermore I believe the term "Anti-Mormon does not merely apply to anyone who disagrees with someone else personal definition of Mormonism, but should only be used when it is clear that those so labeled are only interested in the total destruction of the LDS Church. You seem to As I read through the many threads here wherein, on one hand, we LDS are defending ourselves as Christians while on the other hand we are defining others, even those claiming to be LDS, as "Anti-Mormon", I get a sense that some of us want it both ways. Why should we be able to claim the right to define ourselves as Christians and at the same time insist that those who do not agree with our personal definition of what constitutes a Mormon are "Anti-Mormon"? I believe that if we insist on the right to includes ourselves as Christians (rightly so IMO) we should also allow our fellow LDS members the right to define themselves as Mormons even though we do not agree with them as to what defines Mormonism. Furthermore I believe the term "Anti-Mormon does not merely apply to anyone who disagrees with someone else personal definition of Mormonism, but should only be used when it is clear that those so labeled are only interested in the total destruction of the LDS Church. OK, now I've got you. Why don't we make it easy and just say those who defend the Church as it's presently constituted are "defenders of the faith," while those who tend to constantly criticize the Church as it's presently constituted be called "critics of the faith." These two terms clearly and fairly describe the mutual stands of both membership camps while not resorting to pejoratives. For example, because Kate Kelly was a member of the Church when she carried on about the ordain women movement in the way she did, she would fall into the camp of those who are critics of the faith (and who can deny that she was); while Elder Oaks, who defended the status quo with regard to female priesthood ordination, is a classic example of a defender of the faith. And since the critics of the faith are surely dissatisfied with the Church as it now stands, believing there are much-needed changes that have to be made, there is nothing at all disparaging referring to them as critics of the faith. You wouldn't go as far as saying I haven't fairly described the two general camps of the members of the Church, would you? Surely there is one camp composed of those who defend the Church as it's presently constituted and there is another camp composed of the dissatisfied who frequently criticize the Church as it's presently constituted. So there's our solution. From now on its members of the Church who are defenders of the faith having dialogue and discussion with members who are critics of the faith. Edited October 16, 2014 by teddyaware
HappyJackWagon Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) OK, now I've got you. Why don't we make it easy and just say those who defend the Church as it's presently constituted are "defenders of the faith," while those who tend to constantly criticize the Church as it's presently constituted be called "critics of the faith." These two terms clearly and fairly describe the mutual stands of both membership camps while not resorting to pejoratives. I like this better. defended the status quo Critics of the Status quo or defenders of the status quo.Calling people critics of the faith when they have the best interest of the faith at heart but see a different avenue than you do is still pajorative. I do not consider myself a critic of the faith though in some ways I would consider myself a critic of the status quo. Also, church,gospel, and faith are not always synonymous. Edited October 16, 2014 by HappyJackWagon
teddyaware Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 I like this better. Critics of the Status quo or defenders of the status quo. Calling people critics of the faith when they have the best interest of the faith at heart but see a different avenue than you do is still pajorative. I do not consider myself a critic of the faith though in some ways I would consider myself a critic of the status quo. Also, church,gospel, and faith are not always synonymous. So lets go to my original picks, which I rejected because they didn't sound "cool:" Defenders of the Church and Critics of the Church.
Tacenda Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 What happens on this board is a poor indicator of what's going on in society in general. Here's the problem: I believe there are likely very few Latter-day Saints who visit non-LDS Christian discussion boards and websites in order to hurl accusations at non-LDS Christians that they are practitioners of apostate forms of Christianity. Most LDS Church members are not aggressive in this way and only when pushed will they turn to various forms of mild sarcasm or putdowns as a form of defense. Most Latter-day Saints don't hate non-LDS Churches because they know that these Churches offer some of the truth; have a positive influence on the attendees; that the attendees of these Churches have access to the light of Christ and answer to prayer; and that God loves these non-LDS people and will see to it that all of them eventually inherit one of the mansions in His heavenly kingdom of glory.In the meantime, there are a great many non-LDS Christians who literally hate the LDS Church and proactively visit both non-LDS and LDS discussion boards, web sites and even neutral news venues in order to preemptively strike first by gleefully and even sadistically condemning all Mormons to an endless hell of eternal misery for believing in "false prophets," "false scripture," "false doctrines" and "damnable heresies." We are not at all on an even playing field because most Mormons do want to preach the message of the Restored Gospel but simultaneously also believe strongly in a charitable live and let live philosophy. If non-LDS Christians don't accept the message of the Restored Gospel, well "maybe we'll catch you on another day." But contrarily, a great many non-LDS Christians cannot wait to hurtfully belittle and snidely ridicule all the Latter-day Saints hold most sacred and dear.Do you know any latter-day Saints who spend time visiting web sites to damn, ridicule and condemn to an endless hell of suffering those who don't believe as they do? I sure don't know any of this sort. The comparison you make is tantamount to condemning a person who's been bullied for months and finally strikes back in righteous retribution. You said outside of the discussion boards it doesn't happen generally, I agree to a point but remember sitting in a RS lesson where the discussion went in the direction of discussion about the anti Mormons out there. And I remember that day specifically, and thinking how could they think we aren't Christian? They are so hateful and the discussion definitely impacted me on not feeling warm and fuzzy toward them.
Calm Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 'Critics of the Status quo or defenders of the status quo' This doesn't work because it is fundamental to the Church doctrine that we will have continuing revelation which means change at least in some fashion. Plus one can see constant change in policies and cultural adjustments to culture, though generally minor but overtime can amount to significant changes. The leadership itself aren't defenders of the "status quo" (meaning "existing state of affairs").
Calm Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) You said outside of the discussion boards it doesn't happen generally, I agree to a point but remember sitting in a RS lesson where the discussion went in the direction of discussion about the anti Mormons out there. And I remember that day specifically, and thinking how could they think we aren't Christian? They are so hateful and the discussion definitely impacted me on not feeling warm and fuzzy toward them. That was your reaction. Are you saying the RS influenced you to take it in that direction? Cannot your experience on the board influence how you react offline, taking behavior here to there? Edited October 16, 2014 by calmoriah
HappyJackWagon Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 'Critics of the Status quo or defenders of the status quo' This doesn't work because it is fundamental to the Church doctrine that we will have continuing revelation which means change at least in some fashion. Plus one can see constant change in policies and cultural adjustments to culture, though generally minor but overtime can amount to significant changes. The leadership itself aren't defenders of the "status quo" (meaning "existing state of affairs").Very astute, Calmoriah. So it could be said that those who are critics of the status quo recognize that things have changed and will continue to change and perhaps even look forward to additional changes. Some change will come. Revelation may be received or policies may be enacted in good faith. The real issue is in what is and isn't appropriate in agitating for or attempting to effect change. I believe reasonable people can have very different beliefs about what is and isn't appropriate. Scriptures and historical examples can be given to defend either position. Some may not like the way the critic views the status quo or how he may try to impact change because they may like the status quo. But it is far to simplistic to label every critic of the status quo as a critic of the faith, the church, the gospel, or as an apostate or anti-Mormon. It just isn't true. 1
WysteriaBlue Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 when I hear your stories about the criicism and ostrasizism of you for your faith and to your family members for your failth and from LDS members against excommunicated or lapsed LDS members or calling each other anti or Gentile or whatever other names and abuses are heaped on you and by you...it just saddens my heart. I come here to listen and learn about the LDS faith. The most righteous and loving person I know is an LDS member and he has kept me alive with his faith in me and his God and tries to show me how his loving and forgiving God can bring wisdom, forgiveness and truth into my life. Religion and politics and apparently sex are the few topics not to be discussed due to their sensitive and polarizing natures in "polite" society. Unfortunately, that is also exactly where the rubber meets the road so to speak. I do not like the name calling or antagonism or insults seen too often here either...but have to realize that we are talking about one's eternal life, our hearts and souls, our daily lives and the very truths that define us all. Perhaps, rather than always talk about "us" and "them" as even the OP said in his original post...we try to be a bit more patient, look for more commonalities instead of differences and truly test the limits of our empathy and compassion when responding. There is NO way we will all agree or force our opinions on others or convert everyone to our way of thinking. Sometimes it is better to learn and reflect than to auto respond before we have even finished reading the posts. If we are here to change, control or coerce others, I don't think it becomes much of a discussion or dialogue board at all. I really like listening to all of you and your opinions and discussions and the nuances of your learned lessons. I hope we don't lose the opportunity to continue the board due to malice or judgents left to the almighty in the end.I am probably very naive, but I do care and do want to learn and find the different voices of you all illuminating...Respectfully,wb (the ignorant one) 1
Calm Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) The real issue is in what is and isn't appropriate in agitating for or attempting to effect change. I believe reasonable people can have very different beliefs about what is and isn't appropriate. I think another huge issue is how someone explains the changes. If they view it as overall inspired, I would not call them a critic. If they view changes as solely political or trying to look good in the eyes of the world, I think that will likely qualify them as a critic of the Church (I would want to see their comments in context and over several issues before drawing conclusions). Also another issue I would say is how one anticipates change…do you constantly promote your own ideas of change or do you when change comes directed from leadership embrace it willingly or are disappointed and only go along out of a sense of obligation or being forced to participate because of social pressure, etc. Edited October 16, 2014 by calmoriah
teddyaware Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) 'Critics of the Status quo or defenders of the status quo' This doesn't work because it is fundamental to the Church doctrine that we will have continuing revelation which means change at least in some fashion. Plus one can see constant change in policies and cultural adjustments to culture, though generally minor but overtime can amount to significant changes. The leadership itself aren't defenders of the "status quo" (meaning "existing state of affairs").It works perfectly well. The expression status quo means, "the existing state of affairs." And in the LDS Church the existing state of affairs is unique in that the Church is led by two apostolic quorums of prophets, seers and revelators who are called of the Lord to receive new revelation for the entire body of the Church. For the Latter-day Saints, the status quo is that the Church is ever receiving new revelation and clarifications from the Lord, just as we did two weeks ago in General Conference. Prophets, seers and revelators who continually receive and disseminate new revelation is the status quo of the Church. In the LDS Church, the existing state of affairs is not something static and unchangeable. By very definition, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are there because the Latter-day Saints "believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." (Article of Faith 9). The main difference between the defenders of the Church and the critics of the Church is that the defenders have more faith and trust in the First Presidency and Quorum of the twelve in their divinely appointed roles as prophets, seers and revelators than do the critics. It's just that simple. Edited October 16, 2014 by teddyaware 1
Pahoran Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 Unfortunately, it appears, some feel it is their duty to toss about "anti-Mormon" at every oppurtunity, or the term "apostate". What is very disappointing with "defending" the Church, is that the defenders often resort to personal attacks against a alleged critic before addressing the substance of a claim. Then more disappointingly, personal attacks are found throughout remainder of the response. But what I have seen is defenders of the Church defend such personal attacks. I haven't seen either of the phenomena you describe. What I have seen is that those who attack the Church of Jesus Christ routinely level these accusations against the defenders. This is not because these accusations are true, but because they are polemically useful: they keep defenders on the back foot, defending themselves instead of the Church. It's an ad hominem argument itself.There is nothing wrong with correctly identifying anti-Mormon arguments as what they are. To the contrary, it has the virtue of saving time. Regards,Pahoran 2
HappyJackWagon Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 I think another huge issue is how someone explains the changes. If they view it as overall inspired, I would not call them a critic. If they view changes as solely political or trying to look good in the eyes of the world, I think that will likely qualify them as a critic of the Church (I would want to see their comments in context and over several issues before drawing conclusions). Also another issue I would say is how one anticipates change…do you constantly promote your own ideas of change or do you when change comes directed from leadership embrace it willingly or are disappointed and only go along out of a sense of obligation or being forced to participate because of social pressure, etc.That's a fair view. I can't argue with it. But I do think there is precedence to show that actively seeking change has led to the revelation that makes the change.
stemelbow Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 I suppose we're each categorically something. It's just hard to define someone as a something in particular since that someone is more than likely many things. No one is good and not evil and no one is evil and not at all good. We're just each combinations of many things. Though I'm a Mormon I'm also an anti-Mormon (it seems to be the notion around here anyway) pacifist, a liberal, a conservative, a boyish man, a manish boy, a reader, a mower, an analyst, a hair cutter, cleaner, spanker, and meat eater. And if that pigeon-holing doesn't offend me enough i'm also a sports lover.
Calm Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 That's a fair view. I can't argue with it. But I do think there is precedence to show that actively seeking change has led to the revelation that makes the change.I think the amount of changes desired makes a difference. Changing a program to make it more effective, changing a policy to make it more consistent or understandable...a few changes here and there is significantly different than consistently pushing for a number of changes.
Recommended Posts