Anti-Mormon

[Steve Noel]

The term "anti-Mormon" is used a lot on these message boards. How do you apply this term? Is it a broad term for all who reject LDS beliefs, or is it a specific term for certain kinds of opposition? 

[Calm]

I only use it for those who actively wish to destroy the Church, though it could be for good reasons (they believe it will lead people to hell) or bad (malice).

[salgare]

On discussion boards, it is typically used as a pejorative used to attack, discredit and end discussion.

It has a much more interesting history, going way back, pre-internet, used at the ward level as a mechanism to keep members from even reading or considering various authors or pursuing various topics.  Take for example some ... well actually all of the Church's relatively recent "essays" and other "transparency" issues.  For years these were commonly referred to as "anti-Mormon lies" with a very real implied fear that one would be chained down by Satan and led off into darkness if approached.  It was very effective.  For a significant portion of  Sunday going, mainstream Mormons it is still very effective.

Critics will suggest that the Church still actively encourages members to only use approved resources as to avoid anti-mormon material, continuing to leverage this indoctrinated fear.

basically in Mormonism the label is used for control.

 

 

Edited April 11, 2016 by salgare

[Calm]

Yeah, well some of us don't have anyone to control  nor would it occur to us that one word from us might have that much power with the people we associate with, so we just use it for what it means (anti means against) and not over or underinflate its importance.

There are some, LDS and others, who are careless in how they use it though, so always good to ask someone what they mean by it if it isn't obvious from the context, just like so many other labels in existence.

[salgare]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yeah, well some of us don't have anyone to control  nor would it occur to us that one word from us might have that much power with the people we associate with, so we just use it for what it means (anti means against) and not over or underinflate its importance.

There are some, LDS and others, who are careless in how they use it though, so always good to ask someone what they mean by it if it isn't obvious from the context, just like so many other labels in existence.

Am I an anti-mormon Calm?

p.s. I'm asking and so hopefully the rules of covering this sort of thing will be overlooked.  I believe this could bring out some good discussion for Steve.  Everyone is encouraged to answer.

Edited April 11, 2016 by salgare

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

The term "anti-Mormon" is used a lot on these message boards. How do you apply this term? Is it a broad term for all who reject LDS beliefs, or is it a specific term for certain kinds of opposition? 

The term anti- means to oppose. That's axiomatic. 

To disbelieve something does not mean you oppose it. I disbelieve in much of sectarian Christianity, but I do not oppose it. I am indifferent toward it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, salgare said:

Am I an anti-mormon Calm?

p.s. I'm asking and so hopefully the rules of covering this sort of thing will be overlooked.  I believe this could bring out some good discussion for Steve.  Everyone is encouraged to answer.

I'm not Calm but I will answer. 

To the extent you stridently contend against/ridicule/distort/mischaracterize the Latter-day Saints and/or their faith or abet those who do, well, if the shoe fits, as the saying goes. 

Edited April 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Jim Stiles]

40 minutes ago, salgare said:

On discussion boards, it is typically used as a pejorative used to attack, discredit and end discussion.

It has a much more interesting history, going way back, pre-internet, used at the ward level as a mechanism to keep members from even reading or considering various authors or pursuing various topics.  Take for example some ... well actually all of the Church's relatively recent "essays" and other "transparency" issues.  For years these were commonly referred to as "anti-Mormon lies" with a very real implied fear that one would be chained down by Satan and led off into darkness if approached.  It was very effective.  For a significant portion of  Sunday going, mainstream Mormons it is still very effective.

Critics will suggest that the Church still actively encourages members to only use approved resources as to avoid anti-mormon material, continuing to leverage this indoctrinated fear.

basically in Mormonism the label is used for control.

 

 

I am inclined to agree.  The phrase "anti-mormon lies" was used to describe tales such as Smith's polygamy until unimpeachable historians demonstrated their truthfulness.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

I am inclined to agree.  The phrase "anti-mormon lies" was used to describe tales such as Smith's polygamy until unimpeachable historians demonstrated their truthfulness.

How about the bald, contra-historic falsehood that Brigham Young committed the Mountain Meadows Massacre? Seems pretty anti-Mormon to me. Eh, Jim Stiles? (Wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

Edited April 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[saemo]

54 minutes ago, salgare said:

On discussion boards, it is typically used as a pejorative used to attack, discredit and end discussion.

It has a much more interesting history, going way back, pre-internet, used at the ward level as a mechanism to keep members from even reading or considering various authors or pursuing various topics.  Take for example some ... well actually all of the Church's relatively recent "essays" and other "transparency" issues.  For years these were commonly referred to as "anti-Mormon lies" with a very real implied fear that one would be chained down by Satan and led off into darkness if approached.  It was very effective.  For a significant portion of  Sunday going, mainstream Mormons it is still very effective.

Critics will suggest that the Church still actively encourages members to only use approved resources as to avoid anti-mormon material, continuing to leverage this indoctrinated fear.

basically in Mormonism the label is used for control.

 

 

Some LDS are better with hyperbole than others. Don't take it to heart. I left Mormonism decades ago, but I think if I were Mormon today I'd be doing a lot of eye-rolling, whatevers. Like, being chained down by Satan? Might need to get some Catholic art to go with that!

Anti, as in opposed to? I dunno, are you opposed to any Mormon doctrines? There's several I am opposed to, but hey, I joined up with the great and abominable.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, salgare said:

On discussion boards, it is typically used as a pejorative used to attack, discredit and end discussion.

It has a much more interesting history, going way back, pre-internet, used at the ward level as a mechanism to keep members from even reading or considering various authors or pursuing various topics.  Take for example some ... well actually all of the Church's relatively recent "essays" and other "transparency" issues.  For years these were commonly referred to as "anti-Mormon lies" with a very real implied fear that one would be chained down by Satan and led off into darkness if approached.  It was very effective.  For a significant portion of  Sunday going, mainstream Mormons it is still very effective.

Critics will suggest that the Church still actively encourages members to only use approved resources as to avoid anti-mormon material, continuing to leverage this indoctrinated fear.

basically in Mormonism the label is used for control.

 

 

Well, no. This is a deceptive and simplistic view meant to cast the Church in some sort of regressive, fearful, bad light..trivializing real anti-Mormonism and blaming the victims.

To me, anti-Mormons are people who intend to do harm to Mormons. 

For example, when my father joined the Church, a co-worker bullied him relentlessly for becoming Mormon until he finally struck the man and was fired. A Missionary Baptist friend was told by her father/pastor not to pray about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. If she did, he said, Satan would answer her prayers, because Mormons are Satanic. In Tennessee, my great-grandfather's home was burned and two Mormon missionaries in the area were killed by an anti-Mormon mob. In the school where I taught, Young Life members compiled a list of Mormon kids to deliver from Mormonism. My son was singled out and visited by some students and their youth pastor to free him from our cult. One of them wrote me a letter with some anti-Mormon rhetoric asking me how I could be so stupid to be a Mormon. I graded it for grammar and spelling and sent it to her parents. On a local Seattle Christian radio talk show, an internationally-known anti-Mormon agitator accused Mormons of hoarding guns and ammunition and plotting to take over the US government. Anti- and former-Mormon Ed Decker paraded around our stake's booth at the Washington State Fair in our sacred temple clothing and challenged passers-by to ask us to explain what he was wearing. At a General Conference in SLC, anti-Mormons dragged the temple garments and Books of Mormon through the street gutters in view of conference attendees. I watched Christian youth ministries arrive by the busloads at the Mormon pageant in Manti, Utah, and surround and isolate Mormon young people, shouting questions at them and blocking their entrance into the pageant. On this discussion board, members took on the author of an appalling but popular anti-Mormon book, pointing out error after error, lie after lie. The purpose of the book? To warn Americans what their country would look like under "Mormon control."

Most anti-Mormonism today comes from our own members who wish to remake the Church in their image. So they sensationalize their grievances, seek publicity, and use public outrage, shaming, and mob action to get their way. One particularly egregious activity is to ridicule current Church leaders, trying to create mistrust and divisions within the Church. 

 

Edited April 11, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Russell C McGregor]

2 hours ago, salgare said:

On discussion boards, it is typically used as a pejorative used to attack, discredit and end discussion.

It has a much more interesting history, going way back, pre-internet, used at the ward level as a mechanism to keep members from even reading or considering various authors or pursuing various topics.  Take for example some ... well actually all of the Church's relatively recent "essays" and other "transparency" issues.  For years these were commonly referred to as "anti-Mormon lies" with a very real implied fear that one would be chained down by Satan and led off into darkness if approached.  It was very effective.  For a significant portion of  Sunday going, mainstream Mormons it is still very effective.

Critics will suggest that the Church still actively encourages members to only use approved resources as to avoid anti-mormon material, continuing to leverage this indoctrinated fear.

basically in Mormonism the label is used for control.

 

 

None of the above is true.

In fact, it is a tissue of industry-standard, shrink-wrapped, off-the-shelf anti-Mormon falsehoods.

"I am no devil," says Satan, "for there is none."

Anti-Mormonism is opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ.

In fora like these, it usually consists of attempts to debunk the Church's truth claims and/or attacks upon the Church's founding (and increasingly, contemporary) leaders.

It is frequently, in internet circles, accompanied by near-hysterical attacks on "Mormon apologists."

Which reminds me, Sal: you still haven't provided any documentation to support your accusation of a "memory hole."

 

[Russell C McGregor]

4 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

I am inclined to agree.  The phrase "anti-mormon lies" was used to describe tales such as Smith's polygamy until unimpeachable historians demonstrated their truthfulness.

Call for references, please. Who used that phrase and where?

Because at no time in my lifetime has the Church denied that Joseph practiced plural marriage.

At.No.Time.

 

[why me]

5 hours ago, saemo said:

Some LDS are better with hyperbole than others. Don't take it to heart. I left Mormonism decades ago, but I think if I were Mormon today I'd be doing a lot of eye-rolling, whatevers. Like, being chained down by Satan? Might need to get some Catholic art to go with that!

Anti, as in opposed to? I dunno, are you opposed to any Mormon doctrines? There's several I am opposed to, but hey, I joined up with the great and abominable.

I think that you know what antimormon means. I have seen a lot of it on the site where you are also posting. Back in the day, before pope francis, that board was antimormon considering what was said about the mormon church and the lds. As stated: antimormon is reserved for any indivdual who wishes to destroy the lds church or shows hostility for the lds church and its members. . Likewise for anticatholic. It entails the same meaning but for the catholic church.

[why me]

5 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

I am inclined to agree.  The phrase "anti-mormon lies" was used to describe tales such as Smith's polygamy until unimpeachable historians demonstrated their truthfulness.

And Joseph Smith's polygamy was mentioned in the Ensign back in the 70s. And biographies have been published about his polygamy sold in lds bookshops. In fact, a biography of hyrum was published back in 2003 which was sold in lds bookstores which documented both hyrum's and Joseph's polygamy. I think that the main problem that people have is that they do not go to bookshops to read biographies or church history. And leonard arrington in his books in the 70s mentioned it among other things that the critics claim the lds church was hiding.

https://deseretbook.com/p/hyrum-smith-life-integrity-jeffrey-s-odriscoll-76848?variant_id=21674-paperback

My case in point. And here is Arrington from a 1975 Ensign discussing church history:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1975/07/history-is-then-and-now-a-conversation-with-leonard-j-arrington-church-historian?lang=eng

A better question would be: why did the church change the direction of the ensign and other publications during the mid nineties and into the 21st century.

Edited April 11, 2016 by why me

[why me]

7 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

The term "anti-Mormon" is used a lot on these message boards. How do you apply this term? Is it a broad term for all who reject LDS beliefs, or is it a specific term for certain kinds of opposition? 

On a different board, antimormonism was rampant. It is seen in tone and in the construct of words. It is plain hostility and agression with words. Certainly the mobs in the past were antimormon. Now we have only words. I have seen no antimormonism on this board. But I have seen posters here on different boards engage in it.

[boblloyd91]

8 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

The term "anti-Mormon" is used a lot on these message boards. How do you apply this term? Is it a broad term for all who reject LDS beliefs, or is it a specific term for certain kinds of opposition? 

Personally I see it as someone who is intent in destroying the church and the faith of its members. It can be a tricky distinction, because obviously there are many who disagree with the church, however they don't make it a point to try and fight us. I think anti Mormon would apply to people like James White or Bill Mckeever who have websites and "ministries" devoted to attacking Mormonism. I consider that anti Mormon. I do think some LDS who are a bit thin skinned consider someone disagreeing with them anti Mormon but I feel that is an unfair assumption 

[Steve Noel]

7 hours ago, salgare said:

On discussion boards, it is typically used as a pejorative used to attack, discredit and end discussion.

It has a much more interesting history, going way back, pre-internet, used at the ward level as a mechanism to keep members from even reading or considering various authors or pursuing various topics.  Take for example some ... well actually all of the Church's relatively recent "essays" and other "transparency" issues.  For years these were commonly referred to as "anti-Mormon lies" with a very real implied fear that one would be chained down by Satan and led off into darkness if approached.  It was very effective.  For a significant portion of  Sunday going, mainstream Mormons it is still very effective.

Critics will suggest that the Church still actively encourages members to only use approved resources as to avoid anti-mormon material, continuing to leverage this indoctrinated fear.

basically in Mormonism the label is used for control.

I know that labels can certainly be used in this way. I have seen labels used this way many times among Evangelicals who disagree on theological issues. If you place a negative label on a person or group it creates associations in people's minds. 

[Steve Noel]

What I'm trying to clarify for myself here is if Latter-day Saints generally see Ed Decker or Richard Abanes the same way as they see Craig Blomberg or Richard Mouw. Would you say that the former are anti-Mormons and the latter not? Can someone argue that Joseph Smith is not a prophet or the Book of Mormon is not a revelation from God, and not be considered anti-Mormon? 

[Maedros]

8 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

The term "anti-Mormon" is used a lot on these message boards. How do you apply this term? Is it a broad term for all who reject LDS beliefs, or is it a specific term for certain kinds of opposition? 

It should be a term used only for those who seek to destroy the good name of the Church - this group is mainly dissenters (ex-mormons) but also includes those of other faiths who actively seek to pass judgement in a malicious way. 

[Steve Noel]

14 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said:

Personally I see it as someone who is intent in destroying the church and the faith of its members. It can be a tricky distinction, because obviously there are many who disagree with the church, however they don't make it a point to try and fight us. I think anti Mormon would apply to people like James White or Bill Mckeever who have websites and "ministries" devoted to attacking Mormonism. I consider that anti Mormon. I do think some LDS who are a bit thin skinned consider someone disagreeing with them anti Mormon but I feel that is an unfair assumption 

You may find it interesting that both James White and Bill McKeever feel that the label is wrongly applied to them. In their minds this term speaks to their motives. They state that they do not hate the Latter-day Saints but love them. 

I typed "anti-Mormon" at Bill McKeever's website and this is one of the articles:

http://www.mrm.org/is-mrm-anti-mormon

 

[Steve Noel]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Most anti-Mormonism today comes from our own members who wish to remake the Church in their image. So they sensationalize their grievances, seek publicity, and use public outrage, shaming, and mob action to get their way. One particularly egregious activity is to ridicule current Church leaders, trying to create mistrust and divisions within the Church. 

This is one of the surprising things I have learned since interacting on this message board. I was not aware that some Latter-day Saints label other Latter-day Saints anti-Mormons.

[JLHPROF]

To me we need to recognize the difference between how it is applied and what it actually means.

Technically anything spoken against the Church or with the purpose of discrediting the Church is anti-Mormon.

Personally I save it for those who either manipulate facts to show Mormonism in the worst possible light or who simply lie.

 

[cdowis]

8 hours ago, salgare said:

On discussion boards, it is typically used as a pejorative used to attack, discredit and end discussion.
<snip>

basically in Mormonism the label is used for control.

With my thirty years in apologetics, allow me to share my view.

I find there are two classes of those who actively oppose the church.  I call them "critics" and "antiMormons".  

The critics are those who have a good understanding and knowledge of the church history and doctrines.  The are very careful instating the facts as they know them, and, while we disagree, it basically comes down to a disagreement on our assumptions and interpretation of facts.  Very seldom do we disagree on factual issues, and our discussions are interesting and productive.  

Here is a remarkable experience from one such critic.  Here he is teaching a seminar on how to witness to Mormons, but relates to his audience an amazing encounter  as he talks about baptism for the dead.

But the latter is a different breed.  In some cases they may be truly ignorant of the facts, and have little interest in obtaining them.  But  I specifically use the term for those who are professionals, who have a ministry devoted to discredit and eventually destroy the LDS church.  Their job, their profession is to create discord, doubt and to lead others out of the church.  And they are willing to "lie for the Lord".  They misrepresent, distort, and actually tell falsehoods.  [Unable to give links due to forum restrictions]

A specific example is someone (a long time professional who does know the facts) who continues to assert that the BOM plates weighed 200 pounds (sometimes 100 pounds) during his "ministry" at the Manti Pageant and in videos.  Another uses "The Miracle of Forgiveness" and misrepresents, quoting out of context,  what it actually teaches.  He quotes passages out of context  which deal with adultery as if it were talking about any minor sin.

Such individuals truly have earned the title of AntiMormon.

Edited April 11, 2016 by cdowis

[canard78]

8 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

The term "anti-Mormon" is used a lot on these message boards. How do you apply this term? Is it a broad term for all who reject LDS beliefs, or is it a specific term for certain kinds of opposition? 

I tend to use terms like "non-Mormon," "doubter" or "critic" as they are more descriptive and perhaps less attacking.

Some might see me as an anti-Mormon (and some have said so a few times). I'd agree with @calm that an anti-Mormon is specifically someone who is actively trying to take down the church or people's testimonies... and I'm not. 

The only place I discuss church history and doctrine is on this forum and one or two others (which are designated as such). I keep it off Facebook and don't discuss my criticisms of the church in personal relationships (except two, were it's done as and when they want to discuss it). 

I'd readily call myself a critic of the church. But not anti-Mormon.