Anti-Mormon

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

 

This sums it up nicely (the sentence I put in bold), IMO.

I do believe that the term "anti Mormon" gets used way too often.  For example, there are very few anti's on this forum (from what I've seen).  I think if there is anger and bitterness combined with an attempt to cause harm to the church or damage another's testimony, that is when they are anti or working against the church..

[Rain]

9 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

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.

There are quite a few that are LDS in name only. On another, non religious, board I have been on, several of the women really started fighting against the church.  Almost a decade later one of the ones who is most against the church will tell you she doesnt believe in it, refuses to leave,  but yells when any contact is made with her. Another said that in the next life, if she were to find out God exists and this is his church then she wouldn't want anything to do with him or the church. She has since removed her name from the church. 

Edit: I agree with calm on the definition.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Rain

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, why me said:

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

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"?  

 

[cdowis]

19 minutes ago, canard78 said:

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

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.

Edited April 11, 2016 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

12 minutes 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"?  

 

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.

[ALarson]

7 minutes 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.

No attempt at all (and not relevant to the point I was making).  I know first hand that this detail (Joseph marrying a 14 year old) was considered to be an anti-Mormon lie when stated not that long ago.  I had it happen and have heard of others having the same experience.  When our ward had the 5th Sunday discussion on the new essay, many expressed that they had previously believed much of what was in the polygamy essay were anti-Mormon lies.  

That's the point I was making.

What you bring up, is a discussion for another thread and an entirely different topic (which has been discussed quite recently here actually).

.

Edited April 11, 2016 by ALarson

[Maedros]

8 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 agree with this but disagree with the hidden inference that this tactic was employed by authorized leaders of the church or the Lord's anointed as we consider 'the brethren' to be; but yes, it is true that members used this tactic which is highly effective at rebuffing criticism and it stems from our Protestant heritage - this style is more effectively used by evangelicals today.

5 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

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."

 

The second line in your above post seems to employ the very tactic that you are labelling as anti-mormon which confirms what salgare is saying: "pejorative used to attack, discredit and end discussion." To add insult to injury, the devil is mentioned. I don't know salgare, I'm not familiar with his previous posts so I don't know if you are using a better understanding of how he thinks to rebuff his overall ideology....I don't know.

But from these two posts alone; it seems very clear that you are both right and wrong. Right, in that the term anti-mormon is used to quickly label and end discussion even where there is only difference of opinion or disagreement without disrespect. Right, in that anti-mormonism employs clever devilish tactics to oppose the LDS Church but more importantly to oppose its leaders and by extension Jesus Christ, its head. 

However, it is wrong and anti-mormon to oppose the faith by belittling its good name with lies - it is also wrong to accuse others of doing that when they've merely expressed disagreement or have tried to contribute to discussion.

Just saying.... 

 

[Storm Rider]

9 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? 

The term is used in several different ways.  One way is to describe Mormonism in a sensationalistic manner; at times they will use stories they know to be false (some of them while others just repeat what they have heard without knowing) - an example, was one of the wives of Brigham Young who was kept in the Salt Lake temple.  She jumped from one of the towers into the Great Salt Lake and swam to freedom.  Mormons have horns - they have a devil's tail, etc.  The lake is 19 miles from the temple.  I use it to describe the lower caliber literature that is not based in reality that other churches use to talk about the Church.  Ed Decker, who knows better, publishes this type of stuff.  The First Baptist Church in my home town was consistent in their attacks without ever a desire to actually talk to a Mormon about what we actually believe.   They continue to teach their youth to exclude Mormon youth from their circle of friends.

Some use it to describe anyone that writes or speaks in a negative manner about the Church and its members regardless if the their statements are based in fact or not.  It has more to do with their tone than what is said.  During General Conference there are large numbers who verbally attack LDS as they walk with their families to the conference center.  These people fall into both definitions.

I do not use it when discussing theologians or scholars who attempt to describe the beliefs of the Church and why their own beliefs differ.  The term heretic is not anti-Mormon.  Accusing LDS of not being Christian is not anti-Mormon, but I find it offensive and ignorant.  

It is often used to describe individuals whose sole focus is to destroy the Church.  They are not interested in bringing the saints into another church, or to another system of beliefs - their focus is to destroy, belittle, tear down, and harm.  

Just a few thoughts. 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

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.

We can say we are Christian all we want, but if we act like devils then it is pretty evident we are not Christians.  Someone who claims to be a Mormon and yet acts like a devil in the manner they treat other LDS or talk about the Church.....pretty clear they are not Mormon any longer.  This is the individual who is an anti-Mormon.  

[cdowis]

The antiMormon group is a big tent, which includes Christians evangelists, atheists, and even nominal members of the church.  They do not discriminate on the background, everyone is welcome in the common cause of attacking and destroying the church.

I do find it interesting that the Christians use the same arguments against the Book of Mormon as atheists use to trash the Bible.  When I point that out, it doesn't seem to bother them.

[boblloyd91]

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

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? 

That is a perfect question and one that has helped me a great deal. Both Mouw and Blomberg (whom I respect greatly) certainly disagree with LDS doctrine. However they have made an honest attempt to get to know us, our intricacies and who who we are as a people. They are willing to listen. I think that if anyone puts Decker in the same category as these gentleman as an "Anti Mormon" they are off their rocker. Decker is of course an example of gross ad hominem and straw men creating, though he is really far off in the night (claiming we have an oval office replica in the DC temple etc). Abanes if I recall used to actually post on here and even had Dr. Daniel Peterson write a forward to one of his books, so I would put him a few steps below Decker. In my opinion it all goes back to Ad Hominem. Let me give you an example. On my mission in Iowa I met two different sets of baptist missionaries in two weeks. The first were curious about my beliefs, as well as being open about their beliefs. They seemed willing to listen and try to understand, though of course it was obvious they disagreed with me. The second set told me that I believed I would have endless celestial sex on Kolob and knew beyond a shadow of a doubt only Satan answered prayers about the Book of Mormon. One of them even had a smirk on his face when I tried to defend my beliefs. This is how I differentiate between "friend and foe". Earlier you mentioned James White and Bill Mckeever. I'm sure they don't see themselves as "Anti Mormon" and say they do it out of love, but unfortunately their actions and attitude (picketing LDS events, acting in what I perceive to be a condescending manner) makes me perceive them as an enemy. I hope that makes sense.

[Steve Noel]

1 hour 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.

This is very helpful. Thank you for responding. I would not recognize the man in this video is James White if I didn't know his voice and cadence when he speaks.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Steve Noel

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

No attempt at all (and not relevant to the point I was making).  I know first hand that this detail (Joseph marrying a 14 year old) was considered to be an anti-Mormon lie when stated not that long ago.  I had it happen and have heard of others having the same experience.  When our ward had the 5th Sunday discussion on the new essay, many expressed that they had previously believed much of what was in the polygamy essay were anti-Mormon lies.  

That's the point I was making.

What you bring up, is a discussion for another thread and an entirely different topic (which has been discussed quite recently here actually).

.

I gave up on being surprised over what the Saints don't know a long time ago.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I gave up on being surprised over what the Saints don't know a long time ago.

Ok. 

[CA Steve]

If we cannot agree on what constitutes being a Mormon, how can we establish what defines an anti-Mormon?

[Steve Noel]

43 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The term is used in several different ways.  One way is to describe Mormonism in a sensationalistic manner; at times they will use stories they know to be false (some of them while others just repeat what they have heard without knowing) - an example, was one of the wives of Brigham Young who was kept in the Salt Lake temple.  She jumped from one of the towers into the Great Salt Lake and swam to freedom.  Mormons have horns - they have a devil's tail, etc.  The lake is 19 miles from the temple.  I use it to describe the lower caliber literature that is not based in reality that other churches use to talk about the Church.  Ed Decker, who knows better, publishes this type of stuff.  The First Baptist Church in my home town was consistent in their attacks without ever a desire to actually talk to a Mormon about what we actually believe.   They continue to teach their youth to exclude Mormon youth from their circle of friends.

Some use it to describe anyone that writes or speaks in a negative manner about the Church and its members regardless if the their statements are based in fact or not.  It has more to do with their tone than what is said.  During General Conference there are large numbers who verbally attack LDS as they walk with their families to the conference center.  These people fall into both definitions.

I do not use it when discussing theologians or scholars who attempt to describe the beliefs of the Church and why their own beliefs differ.  The term heretic is not anti-Mormon.  Accusing LDS of not being Christian is not anti-Mormon, but I find it offensive and ignorant.  

It is often used to describe individuals whose sole focus is to destroy the Church.  They are not interested in bringing the saints into another church, or to another system of beliefs - their focus is to destroy, belittle, tear down, and harm.  

Just a few thoughts. 

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. 

[Jim Stiles]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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)

In the Life and Confessions of John D. Lee¹ he wrote:

Quote

I have always believed, since that day, that General George A. Smith was then visiting southern Utah to prepare the people for the work of exterminating Captain Fancher's train of emigrants, and I now believe that he was sent for that purpose by the direct command of Brigham Young.

Lee's last words were:

Quote

I do not believe everything that is now being taught and practiced by Brigham Young. I do not care who hears it. It is my last word... I have been sacrificed in a cowardly, dastardly manner.

Lee was the low man on the totem pole.

¹Lee, John D. (1877), Bishop, W.W., ed., Mormonism Unveiled; Or The Life and Confessions of the Late Mormon Bishop, John D. Lee; (Written by Himself), St. Louis: Bryan, Brand & Company. URL: http://www.archive.org/details/mormonismunveile00leej

Edited April 11, 2016 by Jim Stiles

[consiglieri]

10 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? 

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.

[Steve Noel]

45 minutes ago, cdowis said:

The antiMormon group is a big tent, which includes Christians evangelists, atheists, and even nominal members of the church.  They do not discriminate on the background, everyone is welcome in the common cause of attacking and destroying the church.

I do find it interesting that the Christians use the same arguments against the Book of Mormon as atheists use to trash the Bible.  When I point that out, it doesn't seem to bother them.

That last point is excellent. I have seen this kind of thing many times. Islamic scholars often will use the work of Bart Ehrman to undermine the reliability of the Bible, but they will not accept criticisms of the Qur'an from liberal/unbelieving critics.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

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? 

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.

[Steve Noel]

49 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said:

That is a perfect question and one that has helped me a great deal. Both Mouw and Blomberg (whom I respect greatly) certainly disagree with LDS doctrine. However they have made an honest attempt to get to know us, our intricacies and who who we are as a people. They are willing to listen. I think that if anyone puts Decker in the same category as these gentleman as an "Anti Mormon" they are off their rocker. Decker is of course an example of gross ad hominem and straw men creating, though he is really far off in the night (claiming we have an oval office replica in the DC temple etc). Abanes if I recall used to actually post on here and even had Dr. Daniel Peterson write a forward to one of his books, so I would put him a few steps below Decker. In my opinion it all goes back to Ad Hominem. Let me give you an example. On my mission in Iowa I met two different sets of baptist missionaries in two weeks. The first were curious about my beliefs, as well as being open about their beliefs. They seemed willing to listen and try to understand, though of course it was obvious they disagreed with me. The second set told me that I believed I would have endless celestial sex on Kolob and knew beyond a shadow of a doubt only Satan answered prayers about the Book of Mormon. One of them even had a smirk on his face when I tried to defend my beliefs. This is how I differentiate between "friend and foe". Earlier you mentioned James White and Bill Mckeever. I'm sure they don't see themselves as "Anti Mormon" and say they do it out of love, but unfortunately their actions and attitude (picketing LDS events, acting in what I perceive to be a condescending manner) makes me perceive them as an enemy. I hope that makes sense.

Thanks for this. This is what I'm after.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

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.

it would depend on how egregious their actions or accusations against the Church or its leaders were. I don't think this is unique to Mormons, but it seems to be newsworthy when they choose to make their grudges public. 

Edited April 11, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Jim Stiles]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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. 

 

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.

[Bernard Gui]

2 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. 

That is what they say. Perhaps they believe it. 

Edited April 11, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

This sums it up nicely (the sentence I put in bold), IMO.

I do believe that the term "anti Mormon" gets used way too often.  For example, there are very few anti's on this forum (from what I've seen).  I think if there is anger and bitterness combined with an attempt to cause harm to the church or damage another's testimony, that is when they are anti or working against the church..

I agree with this, and the bolded quote that it was in response to by JLHPROF.