What causes people to be extremly ant-mormon?

[Snow]

IMHO (in other words I can't prove what I'm about to say) so many of the beliefs that the Catholic Church made official in the centuries following the Apostles were simply official and detailed explications of what Christians had mostly accepted since long before. As heresies arose, the Church had to spell teachings out and dilineate orthodoxy from heresy.

But we know what was going on pre-Nicea. We know what went on at Nicea. The Emperor and the church over-ruled the then orthodoxy and implemented new orthodoxy. In the case of "homoiousios" - that was Constantine's doing. That was not something that Christians had believed and accepted "since long before."

It could simply be due to the influence of Catholicism and Christianity in the world, but most of the people I've come across in my life time seem to assume that when we say God made the world, it was out of nothing. And, while God used the dust to create us, that dust came form out of nothing.

Yes - that is what people assume but that is not a biblical view - that is, it arose post NT times. We know when it arose and where. People, if they so assume, may think it is biblical but it is not.

Being of the majority view does not make me right. However, it does hint at the probability that prior to 381 AD Christians already believed in creation out of nothing. BTW, even if I'm right, you could simply say this was part of the Great Apostasy, no?

That's correct, ex nihilo was a held view prior to the 4th century. It arose in the 2nd century put forth by Basilides - a gnostic. Christ and company demonstrated no knowledge or understanding of the concept, nor was it a view held by early followers of Christ.

[Guest lalaonegin]

And with Chamberlainesque charity and appeasement we continue to smile and be kind to people who hate us more than they do abortionists, pornographers, and eugenicists. Be patient with those who see us as the lowest form of humanity.

Atheism and cultural suicide is better than what those you would appease want of us.

I've heard it called the "Tyranny of Tolerance"

We're forced to be tolerant to those who are intolerant.

[Guest lalaonegin]

We should love them and have patience, that said on the other hand Jesus at times refused his captors sport by refusing to speak to those who mocked him. I think Elder Hales sums it up quite nicely in his conference talk Christian Courage.

My own summation for those who don't want to read it:

We need to love, we need to teach but we don't have to raise to the bait.

Alas, what's the old saying, "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin"????

No one here is wholesale hating against thos who hate us, and frankly Dravin I get a little chapped when I see Latter Day Saints so quick to chastise their co-religionist for the "sin" of defending their faith, and yet post articles by our Lord and Savior's Apostles as a shield of succor against those doing Satan's dirty work.

I can imagine two millenia ago numerous well meaning and observant Jews complaining bitterly to each other about what that Nazarene did in the Temple the other day.

Hales talk is direct and to the point, We need to be in the world and not of the world. When this mangy curs attack us, we need to turn the other cheek, when they lie about us on their websites, we need not go to them, when they publish their lies in book form, there's no onus on us to buy them.

Alas, this site is not what Elder Hales was talking about. Here, several well meaning Latter Day Saints with money to burn have created a socalled LDS website, and then they've invited the entire world to come in. Try to post something pro-LDS on a CARM website or an IRR website or even on the UTLM website...It will be completely sanitized.

Yet, when an anti or an apostate posts their lies on this or any of it's sister websites, it's the good LDS who are told to turn the other cheek and behave.

Trying to talk to Jim108 falls under the Obama Doctrine that if you only treat the North Koreans like people, viola, they'll turn into people.

Ogre is correct, we as LDS are expected to just sit back and sustain and support the abuse from folks like Jim108.

Love them YES, Pray for them, as they prey on us ALWAYS, continue to tolerate their lies, shame on us

[Justice]

And with Chamberlainesque charity and appeasement we continue to smile and be kind to people who hate us more than they do abortionists, pornographers, and eugenicists. Be patient with those who see us as the lowest form of humanity.

Yes, but without the sarcasm.

In other words:

Matt. 5:

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Are we not believers and followers of the One who spoke those words?

Atheism and cultural suicide is better than what those you would appease want of us.

You think I said what I did to appease them?

I just don't know what to say anymore.

[Justice]

We're forced to be tolerant to those who are intolerant.

If we are what we claim to be, then yes we are.

Very much so...

We are.

[Justice]

No one here is wholesale hating against thos who hate us,

Justification. It's OK as long as it's not "wholesale?"

and frankly Dravin I get a little chapped when I see Latter Day Saints so quick to chastise their co-religionist for the "sin" of defending their faith,

Always the extreme.

Who said anything about defending your faith being wrong?

I only saw the way in which it's being done mentioned.

[Dravin]

No one here is wholesale hating against thos who hate us, and frankly Dravin I get a little chapped when I see Latter Day Saints so quick to chastise their co-religionist for the "sin" of defending their faith,

Huh? Where did I say it was a sin to defend our faith? Where did I accuse anyone of hating? I wasn't even accusing Ogre of anything (good or bad), just using his post as a springboard for my own thoughts.

I was saying we need to teach (which could be taken as defending the faith) but sometimes its best to just let the angry screaming man in the corner rant and rave because neither of you are going to convince the other and only contention will result if it devolves into returning railing for railing, there is an old saw about mud wrestling with a pig that comes to mind.

Does this mean you can't resolutely and properly respond to falsehoods and misinformation? No. Does this mean we can't call a spade a spade? No. Do both until you are blue in the face.

I'm just saying patience and love are what we need to have (patience and love does not mean sitting there with a goofy smile on your face nodding and asking, "Please sir, can I have some more?" to somebody attacking you), vomiting invective right back at them doesn't gain you anything except possibly some stress relief and Satan is probably going to chalk it up as a point for him because you just lost the spirit. Its all about attitude not the meat of arguments made, I can discuss the same scriptures and make the same arguments with somebody but depending on how I conduct myself in presenting those arguments determines whether I've just drop kicked the spirit out the door or not.

I've bashed before, nothing was gained and much was lost, I've discussed before, things have been gained, if only the knowledge that I did my best to teach and help another understand.

Note: I am not accusing anyone in this thread of spewing invective at each other.

Yet, when an anti or an apostate posts their lies on this or any of it's sister websites, it's the good LDS who are told to turn the other cheek and behave.

Because they might actually listen?

[Guest lalaonegin]

You think I said what I did to appease them?

I just don't know what to say anymore.

YES...I do...

[prisonchaplain]

You know, the Apostles spent most of their time trying to correct the false beliefs of the early church members. They taught over and over that they must be of one mind and one heart, knit together (one faith, one Lord, one baptism).

Your statement above says we can all believe and teach different things and all be right.

Most Catholic and Protestant churches do teach the same faith, the same Lord, the same baptism. So, no, we can't all be right about everything. But, we're right about Jesus, about him as Savior and Lord. And, so much of our teaching is indeed bound to such teachings as the Nicene Creed. For all our disagreement about secondary doctrines, our core teachings are remarkably alike.

That's one of the great mysteries of the modern Christian world to me. How can one church who teaches baptism is necessary believe and teach that another church, that teaches baptism is not necessary, is teaching correct doctrine?

If we all get baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is it really damnable that some of us believe that had we failed to get wet, we'd still enter the Kingdom?

[Guest Alana]

All the anti mormon people I know have been either teachers or in my family. I don't know why the teachers felt the need to bash (and during class!). With my grandmother she was a bit down on religion in general. When she saw my dad getting into a specific religion, she focused on anything about it that was 'weird' and grasped on to that. For her being religious was being a fanatic, so that's what she looked for in the LDS faith. With my sister in law, her father was the one to bring the LDS faith into the family. He ended up cheating on their mom and his parents were never very nice to my sister in laws mom. For her, Mormons became personified by all the bad things she saw in those around her that were Mormon.

It seems personal hang ups that are then fueled by anti mormon literature were what got the ball rolling.

[prisonchaplain]

But we know what was going on pre-Nicea. We know what went on at Nicea. The Emperor and the church over-ruled the then orthodoxy and implemented new orthodoxy. In the case of "homoiousios" - that was Constantine's doing. That was not something that Christians had believed and accepted "since long before."

Yes - that is what people assume but that is not a biblical view - that is, it arose post NT times. We know when it arose and where. People, if they so assume, may think it is biblical but it is not.

That's correct, ex nihilo was a held view prior to the 4th century. It arose in the 2nd century put forth by Basilides - a gnostic. Christ and company demonstrated no knowledge or understanding of the concept, nor was it a view held by early followers of Christ.

This won't be the first time Snow's forced me to the books. Such confidence requires more than off-the-cuff generalisms...so a diggin' I will go. Creation ex nihilo and the prevelance of subordinationism prior to Nicea...sigh...

[Justice]

YES...I do...

If I offended you in any way with my comments I deeply apologize. It is more than possible I was out of line, and as a non-moderator, even out of place. I do not doubt your sincerity in wanting to defend your beliefs. I never did.

Also, I can tell you the reason I made those comments was not to appease anyone.

I've joined many religious forums over the years and left all but one (this one) because of routine contention. I really enjoy coming here, but I won't hesitate to leave if it becomes a place of contention. After several threads, basically in a row, where contention (IMO) was shown toward each other, I had the option to just leave or voice my concern.

I'm not saying it wasn't reciprocal. It's just I *know* what our church teaches, and I don't know what others have been taught. I also know that in order to end contention one side or the other has to not participate. It seemed logical to address the contention coming from LDS members for this reason, and for the fact that this forum is owned and operated by LDS members.

However, if you do not think there was contention, maybe we need to start a thread about what it is and discuss it so I can understand your view better.

[Guest lalaonegin]

If I offended you in any way with my comments I deeply apologize. It is more than possible I was out of line, and as a non-moderator, even out of place. I do not doubt your sincerity in wanting to defend your beliefs. I never did.

Also, I can tell you the reason I made those comments was not to appease anyone.

I've joined many religious forums over the years and left all but one (this one) because of routine contention. I really enjoy coming here, but I won't hesitate to leave if it becomes a place of contention. After several threads, basically in a row, where contention (IMO) was shown toward each other, I had the option to just leave or voice my concern.

I'm not saying it wasn't reciprocal. It's just I *know* what our church teaches, and I don't know what others have been taught. I also know that in order to end contention one side or the other has to not participate. It seemed logical to address the contention coming from LDS members for this reason, and for the fact that this forum is owned and operated by LDS members.

However, if you do not think there was contention, maybe we need to start a thread about what it is and discuss it so I can understand your view better.

Justice, you did not offend me, you merely "asked" a question on a previous post and I responded. I tend to only get "offended" and I'm not really sure I ever get that "offended" here, except when I read anti or apostate material that's clearly been cut and pasted from anti or apostate websites.

I understand where you're coming from, and truth be told, your view of the situation is probably more Christ like than mine.

What really tends to chap me is this; Anti's and Apostates have a clearly free reign here. They post their lies with impunity and rarely are they out right called on their posts, but when a Latter Day Saint dares to challenge them, suddenly there's a cacopheny of folks who seemingly all get together to tell that/those LDS to behave themselves or quote Ensign articles ad nauseam about the internet and internet activities.

Back to the post you quote from, there was no offense taken...

[pam]

What really tends to chap me is this; Anti's and Apostates have a clearly free reign here. They post their lies with impunity and rarely are they out right called on their posts, but when a Latter Day Saint dares to challenge them, suddenly there's a cacopheny of folks who seemingly all get together to tell that/those LDS to behave themselves or quote Ensign articles ad nauseam about the internet and internet activities.

Thanks for this comment. It has given me much, as a moderator, to think about.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm pleased that several matters are resolved. One we never truly figured out, imho, is what motivates EXTREME antis. Again, without any endorsement, justification or agreement, here is a key motivator: Confrontational evangelism. There is a segment of Protestant Christian, known as Fundamentalist. They belief in "contending for the truth." They perceive their job as defending and opposing. For them, the Trinity is the Father, Son and Holy Bible. And, don't trust the heart, they'll tell you--it's deceitful above all else. Such folk do not wish to converse, engage or improve anything. They see themselves as Noah's Ark--get on with them, or burn in the fires of judgment.

By way of history, there was a break in the 1940s between Fundamentalists (the only alternative then was liberal, social gospel Protestantism) and "Neo-Evangelicals." The Fundamentalists saw this breakaway (with the likes of Billy Graham, and Christianity Today magazine) as compromising, weak, and doctrinally flawed (after all, they accepted the Pentecostals...:::gasp!!!:::).

So, yes, they will say they are motivated by love--the kind of love that grasps those in danger from fire. But, it's not the kind of love that will smile, and walk with you for a season, or seasons. If it's any consolation, they use the c-word on you, but consider my people to be demonized.

[prisonchaplain]

On the matter of antis, exs, and nons posting here...it's the site's history. At one point as many as 30% of the posters here were non-members. Lately, it's more like 15%. There was a time when even more freedom was allowed the non-loyalists. Those who prefer an almost completely faith-affirming site usually got frustrated an left. At the same time, the worst trolls were run off.

When the More Good Foundation came in to back the site, there was some tempering of the non-LDS commentary. Gradually, an even keel was found. The balance today allows folks like myself to come and learn, share my own beliefs and perceptions openly, and to learn from some truly intelligent people here. Trolls continue to be run off, and many LDS find their faith strengthened by some of the questions and answers given.

Any religious site that hopes to do more than encourage the faithful (i.e. spread the gospel amongst Gentiles) will endure some unpleasant conversation. But, fwiw, imho, this site mostly strikes an excellent balance.

[Snow]

.

So, yes, they will say they are motivated by love--the kind of love that grasps those in danger from fire. But, it's not the kind of love that will smile, and walk with you for a season, or seasons. If it's any consolation, they use the c-word on you, but consider my people to be demonized.

Quite clearly it is not love. That is a spin they put on it so they can pretend not to look like hate mongers. What it is - is boundary maintenance fueled by an inferiority complex - plain and simple.

That's not to say that there is not reasonable disagreement. There are legitimate critics of the Church who are fair and honest - whose motivations seem to be a sense of honesty and fairness. A typical LDS response (from some LDS) is to claim that any criticism, even fair and honest criticism, is extreme anti-Mormonism.

[pam]

So Snow, what is your definition of an anti-Mormon? I'm asking this of you as I agree with your above comment.

[Guest lalaonegin]

But, fwiw, imho, this site mostly strikes an excellent balance.

Prison Chaplin...Somehow, when I read your post, all that comes to mind is the Fox News moniker..."Fair and Balanced"...RIGHT:lol:

[prisonchaplain]

To Snow: There is a very pungeant anti-intellectualism in much of Fundamentalism as well--after all "high criticism" "Evolution" etc. all came out of "man's wisdom."

lalonegin...maybe fair...we hope the trolls will knock themselves off-balance. Pushing may be more fun, but there's a certain deep and only slightly sinful delight in watching malcontents sabatoge themselves.

[the Ogre]

Also, I can tell you the reason I made those comments was not to appease anyone.

Do you recall Neville Chamberlain from WWII? This is a type of behavior that I find disgusting. I do not think that is the right path to take. Above, PC discusses fundamentalist approaches to evangelism. I do not find it acceptable. I do not think the right way to witness to people is to first tell them they are going to hell, or to uncompromisingly tell them they are wrong, or to never dialogue. LDS missionaries never do this, why would we think it is acceptable?

Should we ignore them? Yes, if they would simply go away. Should we ban them at the slightest provocation? While I want to say yes, this would be wrong. There have been antis who misunderstood the church and joined. Should we patiently allow them to post falsehoods about the church unopposed when we know there are investigators? No.

It has been recommended that we forward posts that are inflammatory. I have done this occasionally. I don't like to. It's pretty chicken 's' behavior. Nor do I like to PM. I really do not like email and only use it for business (those of you who have emailed me will notice I don't respond often . . . don't feel bad, I don't reply to voice mail either). Not PMing also helps avoid PM flame-wars. I am not earning money here, so why do something I'm not comfortable with. I do not like social net-working. I've been on face book for over 2 years and I barely added my fiftieth friend. My last status update: [the Ogre] hates earwax! I only have seven here. Social net-working takes too much work.

That leaves me, with my myriad hang-ups, few options. 1) Be honest. 2) Respect when respect is reciprocated. 3) Let it all hang-out on the forums and occasionally on the blogs. 4) Know who my real friends are. 5) Ignore post-padders or people who write posts that won't fit in my browser window. 6) Never create scripture strings. 7) Play Dr.T's games. 8) Oppose methods and beliefs instead of individuals.

Nowhere does it say I have to be nice or allow people breathing room. Trolls like antis do not deserve respect as they NEVER show any. I fail as a Chr-stian in a couple areas. One is I have found it impossible to be a peacemaker with people who don't want peace.

[Maureen]

Bull, bull, bull.

Give us to the links at LDS anti-evangelical websites.

Name the LDS anti-evangelical books.

Link to the photos of LDS picketing of evangelical events.

It is not Bull! The question was asked: "What causes people to be extremely anti-mormon?" An answer was given that some non-Mormons have been treated unkindly by Mormons for no other reason than the fact that they were non-Mormon. This is a legitimate reason why some people may become anti-Mormon. Because of the bad manners of others. A person or group does not have to create websites or produce books to create these feelings. Person to person behaviour does this on its own. You can't actually say that all Mormons are kind and respectful, just like all non-Mormons are not all kind and respectful. That kind of self-righteousness might be another reason why there are anti's in all camps. And the fact that it's been addressed by LDS leaders shows that it exists.

Occasionally I hear of members offending those of other faiths by overlooking them and leaving them out. This can occur especially in communities where our members are the majority. I have heard about narrow-minded parents who tell children that they cannot play with a particular child in the neighborhood simply because his or her family does not belong to our Church. This kind of behavior is not in keeping with the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. I cannot comprehend why any member of our Church would allow these kinds of things to happen.....

...The Lord expects a great deal from us. Parents, please teach your children and practice yourselves the principle of inclusion of others and not exclusion because of religious, political, or cultural differences. (M. Russell Ballard, “Doctrine of Inclusion,” Liahona, Jan 2002, 40–43)

M.

[martybess]

Prisonchaplain,

Why do you come here? Are you trying to learn about Mormonism, convert us, answer questions about Protestants or all of the above?

-Marty

Edited June 1, 2009 by martybess

[MikeUpton]

It is not Bull! The question was asked: "What causes people to be extremely anti-mormon?" An answer was given that some non-Mormons have been treated unkindly by Mormons for no other reason than the fact that they were non-Mormon. This is a legitimate reason why some people may become anti-Mormon. Because of the bad manners of others. A person or group does not have to create websites or produce books to create these feelings. Person to person behaviour does this on its own. You can't actually say that all Mormons are kind and respectful, just like all non-Mormons are not all kind and respectful. That kind of self-righteousness might be another reason why there are anti's in all camps. And the fact that it's been addressed by LDS leaders shows that it exists.

There is a very large difference between anti-anything and offhanded bigotry. A very big one. I posted that article to show, yes there may be a problem with some prejudices in some communities with a large population of narrow-minded LDS, but its a far far cry from one to not trust outsiders, to take the steps to write and publish books and pamphlets, produce videos, and hold meetings against a given group. Therefore, Snow's point is valid.

The terms you are addressing the issue is far too black-and-white. The fact that it is openly addressed by our leaders in condemnation of the members who are participating in any level of bigotry again backs up the fact that we consider it wrong on any level for us to behave this way, and again backs up the point Snow made.

Edited June 1, 2009 by MikeUpton

[Maureen]

There is a very large difference between anti-anything and offhanded bigotry. A very big one. I posted that article to show, yes there may be a problem with some prejudices in some communities with a large population of narrow-minded LDS, but its a far far cry from one to not trust outsiders, to take the steps to write and publish books and pamphlets, produce videos, and hold meetings against a given group. Therefore, Snow's point is valid.

It is valid, but so is the reason that Jim first brought up and that I just mentioned again.

M.

Edited June 1, 2009 by Maureen