Anti-Mormon

[Steve Noel]

14 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

My experience is that "anti-Mormon" is a term used by Mormons to discount critical opinions of the LDS Church so they don't need to be dealt with.

Once I call someone an "anti-Mormon," I am poisoning the well so that nothing they say needs to be taken seriously.

It is sort of the flip-side of how some evangelical Christians refer to Mormonism as a "cult."

The goal is the same; to protect the flock from influences perceived as adverse. 

It is much easier than dealing with the issues.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think that what you are saying has some merit. Arminians and Calvinists do this to each other all the time. From the responses here, I am thinking that this is not the predominant way this term is used.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

These did not include the details regarding polygamy that are now published by the church.  That is the difference.

Not that many years ago, if you  stated that Joseph married a 14 year old and other teenagers, the response would immediately be, "that's an anti-Mormon lie" (or something similar).  Now, those facts are written and published on lds. org.   Were those details mentioned in "the Ensign back in the 70s"?  

 

I learned this about JS in seminary in 1994.  I'm not saying that what you said didn't happen as well, just that it wasn't a given.

[Steve Noel]

18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

There are degrees of intention, technique, virulence, and sophistication among anti-Mormons just as there are among anti-Semites or anti-Catholics. Arguing about beliefs is not necessarily anti-Mormon. For example, I do not believe you are anti-Mormon based on your measured words, questions, and responses. However, there is a history of "friendly" inquisitors coming to this board who ingratiated themselves only to use our answers and words in other venues for anti-Mormon purposes.

I understand what you're saying here. Thank you.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I learned this about JS in seminary in 1994.  I'm not saying that what you said didn't happen as well, just that it wasn't a given.

I agree and it sounds like you had a great seminary teacher!  I had some excellent ones as well, but none of them taught much about Joseph's polygamy (other than that he did live polygamy and then moved on).   

[thesometimesaint]

3 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

Would you pray to determine the truthfulness of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming?

Some Mormons (without the approval of their leaders) do hoard guns.  A group of them tried to take over a Federal facility in Washington State.

Ed Decker is a pentecostal.  Pentecostals do not let the truth get in the way of a good story.

The LDS church deserve their pageants, if not the protests at them.

I voted for Gary Johnson.

Sure, why not? But be aware any number of people can play that game. Galileo should be a cautionary tale.

But to affirm that the Sun is really fixed in the center of the heavens and that the Earth revolves very swiftly around the Sun is a dangerous thing, not only irritating the theologians and philosophers, but injuring our holy faith and making the sacred scriptures false."

Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church and the foremost Vatican theologian of the seventeeth century.

When someone violates the laws of a country they are subject to the punishment assigned by that country.

I don't get into telling others what they believe.

Thank you.

My condolences.

[Jim Stiles]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

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.

How could the plates have not weighed closed to 200 pounds?

In 1859, Harris (http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IA/sain1882.htm#100484) said that the plates:

Quote

were seven inches [18 cm] wide by eight inches [20 cm] in length, and were of the thickness of plates of tin; and when piled one above the other, they were altogether about four inches [10 cm] thick; and they were put together on the back by three silver rings, so that they would open like a book.

7 * 8 * 4 / 12³ = 0.12962963 ft³

0.12962963 ft³ * 19.30 g/cm³ * 62.4 (lbs/ft³)/(g/cm³) = 156.1 lbs

Bill McKeever may have used different dimensions.

[Jim Stiles]

2 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

How could the plates have not weighed closed to 200 pounds?

In 1859, Harris (http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IA/sain1882.htm#100484) said that the plates:

7 * 8 * 4 / 12³ = 0.12962963 ft³

0.12962963 ft³ * 19.30 g/cm³ * 62.4 (lbs/ft³)/(g/cm³) = 156.1 lbs

Bill McKeever may have used different dimensions.

Smith said (http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v3n09.htm):

Quote

each plate was six inches [15 cm] wide and eight inches [20 cm] long, and not quite so thick as common tin. They were ... bound together in a volume, as the leaves of a book, with three rings running through the whole. The volume was something near six inches [15 cm] in thickness

7 * 8 * 6 / 12³ = 0.1944444 ft³

0.1944444 ft³ * 19.30 g/cm³ * 62.4 (lbs/ft³)/(g/cm³) = 234.2 lbs

[thesometimesaint]

Volume has little to no correlation to weight.

[Jim Stiles]

24 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think that what you are saying has some merit. Arminians and Calvinists do this to each other all the time. From the responses here, I am thinking that this is not the predominant way this term is used.

Some Arminians think that Calvinists are going to hell.  Some Calvinists think that Arminians are going to hell.  Both groups are a few fries short of a happy meal.

[consiglieri]

25 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think that what you are saying has some merit. Arminians and Calvinists do this to each other all the time. From the responses here, I am thinking that this is not the predominant way this term is used.

I expect the folks on this board attempt to be a bit more nuanced in their usage.

But the problem is that the term itself is so ambiguous and its meaning depends so much on the person using it that it would usually be better to simply not use the term at all.

At least if one is really interested in addressing the underlying issues.

This would be much the same as most Mormons preferring to simply not be called a "cult" at all, regardless of how one defines it.

 

[Jim Stiles]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

In the 1830's marrying a 14 year old was perfectly legal. Your attempt at Presentism is noted.  D&C 132 has been in our Scriptures for a long time now.

Heck, in the 3rd century, Rome let two dudes marry.  That does not make it right.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Jim Stiles

[consiglieri]

6 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Volume has little to no correlation to weight.

As a number of posters on this board prove on a regular basis. 

 

[Jim Stiles]

7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Volume has little to no correlation to weight.

Statements like this remind me why I am known as an Anti-mormon.

[Storm Rider]

54 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

Thanks. This is helpful. I recently saw a YouTube video of a guy street preaching near an LDS temple. He held up a sign for his website about Joseph Smith being a liar. He kept saying that he was doing what he was doing because he loved the Mormon people. I don't know who this man is, but if I were LDS I would have been repelled by his approach. What really bothered me was that he was yelling out his criticisms at families with children. 

Those guys are a dime a dozen and I don't think they help themselves.  I once met a group of Evangelists that were dressed in suits, peacefully, calmly, wishing Mormons well as they were attending conference.  I shook one of the guy's hands and thanked him for his kindness.  I don't specifically remember a sign, but it had to be there because I remember they were Evangelists.  I think this is effective and allows for dialogue in the future.  

We get the crazies at temple openings, when a church is being built - this can often be a struggle because other churches in the community will try and stop the construction of a Mormon church.  Of all the Christians I have met I remain the most uncomfortable with Evangelists.  They are a different group of people that tend to not exhibit Christ-like behavior except to their own.  I realize that is a broad generalization, but if there is a community meeting I am always prepared to meet an enemy when the Evangelists find out I, my wife, or my children are Mormon.  

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

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

 

It's hard to take them serious, because they have their own problems or non answers to things as well.  

[Jim Stiles]

5 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

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.

 

I was mostly talking about Fawn Brodie's book.  But there is a practice in the LDS church of hiding certain doctrines and past practices from new converts and outsiders.

The cartoon from Ed Decker's first movie has been described as Anti-mormon propaganda by some Mormons, but is essentially the truth.

Heck, Gordon Hinckley told a fib about the Lorenzo Snow couplet on national television.

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, canard78 said:

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. 

I agree with this.  For those who see things differently and/or critically is very different from anti.

[thesometimesaint]

26 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

As a number of posters on this board prove on a regular basis. 

That they do. But the discussion is about the volume(size) of the plates, and the plates conjectured weight in LBS.

[Jim Stiles]

18 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

I was mostly talking about Fawn Brodie's book.  But there is a practice in the LDS church of hiding certain doctrines and past practices from new converts and outsiders.

The cartoon from Ed Decker's first movie has been described as Anti-mormon propaganda by some Mormons, but is essentially the truth.

Heck, Gordon Hinckley told a fib about the Lorenzo Snow couplet on national television.

Full interview, just in case I may have made a mistake:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAsNMWwRXvs&nohtml5=False

 

[thesometimesaint]

14 minutes ago, Jim Stiles said:

I was mostly talking about Fawn Brodie's book.  But there is a practice in the LDS church of hiding certain doctrines and past practices from new converts and outsiders.

The cartoon from Ed Decker's first movie has been described as Anti-mormon propaganda by some Mormons, but is essentially the truth.

Heck, Gordon Hinckley told a fib about the Lorenzo Snow couplet on national television.

Fawn Brodie is a proven liar. What the heck are you talking about? D&C 132 has been publicly available for over 170 years.

The God Makers by your good friend Ed Decker.

SEE http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/GMErrors.htm

President Hinckley told no fib.

[Jim Stiles]

31 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It's hard to take them serious, because they have their own problems or non answers to things as well.  

CFR

[canard78]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

There are no antiMormons in this forum.  I have invited several to participate here and they have no interest in doing so.  One used a vulgar word to emphasize his disinterest.

IMO, they are not interested in a discussion of the issues.

I suppose it depends on your definition. 

I don't think this forum is very tolerant of anti-Mormons. They are often either pounced on and derided or banned because they are overly confrontational. 

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Fawn Brodie is a proven liar.

CFR (I'd really like to see this).

I know there are some errors in Brodie's book, but she did quite an amazing job with her research when one considers this was before the internet, etc.  Also documents and other writings have surfaced since she wrote her book that were not available to her.  Just because there were errors in her book, this does not mean that she told lies or is a liar.  

Here is what Bushman has stated regarding her and her book (No Man Knows My History):

In 2005, LDS scholar Richard Bushman published a highly regarded biography of Smith entitled Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling which has frequently been compared to Brodie's work. In his book, Bushman noted that Brodie's "biography was acknowledged by non-Mormon scholars as the premier study of Joseph Smith"[10] and called Brodie "the most eminent of Joseph Smith's unbelieving biographers."[11] Bushman wrote in 2007 that Brodie had "shaped the view of the Prophet for half a century. Nothing we have written has challenged her domination. I had hoped my book would displace hers, but at best it will only be a contender in the ring, whereas before she reigned unchallenged."[12] 

 

Edited April 11, 2016 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

CFR (I'd really like to see this).

I know there are some errors in Brodie's book, but she did quite an amazing job with her research when one considers this was before the internet, etc.  Also documents and other writing have surfaced since she wrote her book that were not available to her.  Just because there were errors though, does not mean that she told lies or is a liar.

Here is what Bushman has stated regarding her and her book (No Man Knows My History):

In 2005, LDS scholar Richard Bushman published a highly regarded biography of Smith entitled Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling which has frequently been compared to Brodie's work. In his book, Bushman noted that Brodie's "biography was acknowledged by non-Mormon scholars as the premier study of Joseph Smith"[10] and called Brodie "the most eminent of Joseph Smith's unbelieving biographers."[11] Bushman wrote in 2007 that Brodie had "shaped the view of the Prophet for half a century. Nothing we have written has challenged her domination. I had hoped my book would displace hers, but at best it will only be a contender in the ring, whereas before she reigned unchallenged."[12] 

 

Yeah..I would love to see a CFR on this..and what it would pertain to. 

[consiglieri]

4 minutes ago, canard78 said:

I suppose it depends on your definition. 

I don't think this forum is very tolerant of anti-Mormons. They are often either pounced on and derided or banned because they are overly confrontational. 

I want to add that, in some ways, I think the moderators are even-handed in that they have a history of banning some pro-Mormon apologists from threads when they get overly confrontational with yours truly.

 

All the Best!

--Limited Privileges Consiglieri