Anti-Mormon Media

[ozzy]

I find it kind of funny how a discussion on the necessity of being exposed to anti-mormon literature has altered to a discussion of a political parody or whatever it is.

Anyway, I personally don't think it is very necessary to check out anti-mormon stuff just to get an idea of their arguments. It may work for some people, but I have found that simply knowing actual truth has served me just fine when encountering individuals who want to argue with me. At the end of the day, there is no point whatsoever in arguing with antimormons. They are thoroughly convinced of the imagined devilish nature of the church and base their arguments in things the church doesn't even actually believe. If they can be so convinced of imagined jargon, what good will arguing with them do? Especially since the spirit of contention is almost guaranteed to be present at such an encounter and would thus drive away any semblance of the true spirit unless the one arguing truth was specifically called to do so. Without the spirit present, both parties will come thoroughly convinced that they are correct and will leave equally convinced.

[Moksha]

BTW, the "Barack the Magic Negro" phrase was originated by Rev. Al Sharpton, who said that Obama wasn't "down for the struggle" because he didn't grow up here in America. (He grew up in Indonesia and Kenya.) The parody song came about afterwards. Rev. Sharpton was a Hillary Clinton supporter and he was asserting that Obama wasn't "black enough" to be his choice for president.

The phrase was by American conservative satirist Paul Shanklin who has been contributing to the Rush Limbaugh show since 1993. In the song he was imitating the Rev. Al Sharpton (hopefully he did not dress up in black face too).

Your other comments by about Al Sharpton are made up too. Usually when I make things up they are about Space Aliens, Vikings and BYU football, but we all have our peccadilloes.

[jayanna]

Reading anti-mormon literature....some was brought into my home while I was investigating.

Growing up, my mom was an English teacher. I had a college reading level since the age of 9. She taught me some really important things, like the difference between fact and opinion, and how to tell when someone is listening or when they are simply waiting for you to stop talking, to say what they want to say.

I don't read things written by people who are preaching, teaching, encrouraging hate of anybody...no matter what side of the church line they are on.

Jesus gave us direction concerning what to do about anti people

Matt. 5: 44

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;

We should love them, pray for them, and serve them. There is only one real way to defeat an enemy, that is by not making them an enemy anymore.

The fact that we are persecuted tells me that we are doing something right. This is another proof to me that we are true disciples.

This is a sign of the second coming as told by Jesus in the new testament. Luke 21:

9 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.

10 Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:

11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.

12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name’s sake.

13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony.

14 Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer:

15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

[bytebear]

The phrase was by American conservative satirist Paul Shanklin who has been contributing to the Rush Limbaugh show since 1993. In the song he was imitating the Rev. Al Sharpton (hopefully he did not dress up in black face too).

Your other comments by about Al Sharpton are made up too. Usually when I make things up they are about Space Aliens, Vikings and BYU football, but we all have our peccadilloes.

No, it was first used by David Ehrenstein in an LA Times article. And he is hardly conservative. Here's a link to the original article which inspired the song.

Obama the 'Magic Negro' - latimes.com

The song fulfilled its purpose, which was to show they hypocrisy of liberalism in race baiting and accusatory actions. And it continues to do so.

Edited September 23, 2010 by bytebear

[Moksha]

Hi Bytebear, here is an extension on that in this Wiki article: Barack the Magic Negro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Avrham]

hello

All the anti-mormon questions I read and get asked I find very interesting points of view I even had a sandra tanner book somewhere??

I have never thought of anti-mormon questions being anti just negative/ignorant however me being or having a devout(my opinion)belief in Jesus Christ breaks down the ignorant/negative views on any subject let alone religion/faith

I don't mind having critics and listening too them(if I got the time) because not to would make me ignorant

just my take:):):):):)

[hordak]

To be perfectly honest i'm disappointed that the video starts with an ad hominem.

This is something regularly used by "anti" Mormons and there is even one in the video , Josephs treasure seeking, but it is labeled a half truth. "Anti" Mormons use this past history to paint him as unreliable. This video does the same thing with Ed Decker and him "leaving his wife"

I think the biggest problem with "anti" Mormon media is that most of it is "true" Half truths, unauthoritative statements, stuff out of context (like the video presents) and there is 2 things that can be done to "take the wind out" of the "anti" argument.

1. Put lots of emphasis on personal revelation and confirmation. We have seen a lot of discussions on "the little things" lately and many think that if one will can't/wont do the little stuff how can they expect to do the big. I can agree with this but think it also applies to getting confirmation and Revelation as well. The saints who would say, "Bishop Jones asked my to shave and that's good enough for me" or "Elder Bruce R. McConkie says we shouldn't use playing cards (in Mormon doctrine which ironically is not actually Mormon doctrine) so i will not have them in my home" without seeking confirmation from the spirit are the same who would have said "Orson Pratt taught Jesus was a polygamist so it must be true"

2. I think the church should be more open with the "oddities" of church history. Yes there are some "odd things" but nothing "stranger" then Christianity as a whole.

When members find out about the hat translation method, and leave it's not because it is "weird" especially when one considered the 10 commandments and the burning bush. The problem is they spent all these years being shown Joseph sitting across from a scribe with the plate out for everyone to see in "today's translation methods" I have never met anyone who lost faith in Jonah because the "oddity" of his story being swallowed by a fish. I have met some who did in Joseph Smith because of the "oddity" of the way polygamy was commanded. The difference in the 2 stories. Joanah's is taught to everyone from primary on up. Joseph's will not be heard by many until it is brought up by an "anti" Mormon.

I think the church should offer an optional history class that would inoculate members against such things and prevent the argument that they hide history. I think the Joseph Smith papers and the book Rough stone rolling (which isn't official) is a step in the right direction.

[Dravin]

This is something regularly used by "anti" Mormons and there is even one in the video

Honestly, it's regularly used by quite a lot of anti anything.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Dravin

[bytor2112]

The phrase was by American conservative satirist Paul Shanklin who has been contributing to the Rush Limbaugh show since 1993. In the song he was imitating the Rev. Al Sharpton (hopefully he did not dress up in black face too).

Your other comments by about Al Sharpton are made up too. Usually when I make things up they are about Space Aliens, Vikings and BYU football, but we all have our peccadilloes.

Well....yes...but only the use of his first name..... Barrack. Davin Ehrenstein wrothe the article, "Obama the "magic negro" and it was published in the LA Times. And you Moksha :) can read it for your self ...HERE.

[Maya]

Looks like an anti has reacted...

I likied your text. Funny thing is that often they cant even say why they call us a cult or a movement or what ever.... and they do not see that their church would also be a cult or movement or what ever using the same explanation to the word.

[Maya]

I don't search for/read through the anti sites, I do read through the apologetic sites though - like

LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage

reading through fairlds.org is a great way to know what is out there that is being said - while at the same time seeing the truth, errors in what has been said.

I was challenged to show that an antisite was wrong... it is very difficult as the things in the back ground are true but not the imagination added to it. It is true that JS had many wifes, but the anties hint that they slept in same bed, which is wrong, but difficult to prove wrong.

That site is so full of such things I did tell waht is wrong ... but ofcourse I just got to hear that I have not shown anything.... and that LDS dont have scolars....

[Maya]

Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages - FAIRMormon

If Joseph was such a .... then why did he have no children except by Emma?

Mormon Scholars Testify

Are you sure you have not red my Finnish answers to them! Hahahah That is just what I say

I love that article!

[LonelyGargoyle]

How do you know he didn't father any children by all those wives? He kept the wives secret, it's probable that he kept the children secret.

[jayanna]

Joseph Smith gave us instruction pertinent to the situation in which we find ourselves. He said, “Go in all meekness, in sobriety, and teach Jesus Christ and him crucified; not to contend with others on account of their faith, or systems of religion, but pursue a steady course. This I delivered by way of commandment, and all who observe it not, will [bring] persecution on their heads, while those who do [obey this instruction] shall always be filled with the Holy Ghost; this I pronounced as a prophecy” (See History of the Church, 2:431).

I should like to take a few of the words of that statement as a theme: Contend not with others, but pursue a steady course.

There may be those who will seek to tempt us away. There may be those who will try to harass us. We may be disparaged. We may be belittled. We may be attacked verbally. We may be ridiculed before the world. There are those, both in the Church and out, who would compel us to change our position on some matters, as if we had the right to illegally take upon ourselves the authority which belongs to God alone.

We have no desire to quarrel with others. We teach the gospel of peace. But we cannot forsake the word of the Lord as it has come to us through men whom we have sustained as prophets. We must stand and say, to quote again the words of Miss Tuchman: “This is what I believe. This I will do and that I will not do. This is my code of behavior and that is outside it.”

I conclude with this question: should we be surprised if we are called upon to endure a little criticism, to make some small sacrifice for our faith, when our forebears paid so great a price for theirs?

Without contention, without argument, without offense, let us pursue a steady course, moving forward to build the kingdom of god. If there is trouble, let us face it calmly. Let us overcome evil with good. This is God’s work. It will continue to strengthen over the earth, touching for good the lives of countless thousands whose hearts will respond to the message of truth. No power under heaven can stop it. This is my faith and this my testimony. God help us to be worthy of the great and sacred commission that is ours, thus to build his kingdom.

These are all excerpts taken from a talk by

Pres. Hinckley Oct. Conference 1989

[Faded]

I first encountered anti-Mormon propaganda at a very young age. I think I was 5 or 6 years old. A neighborhood friend's parents went to a church that went heavy on anti-Mormon garbage and so I heard the most bizarre things at such a young age.

I dismissed out of hand the following, "Joseph Smith put some magic pebbles in his hat and used them to look for treasure. He found the treasure while plowing a field when his plow ran into a stone box ..." I knew it didn't happen like that. It was many years later when I came to realize that there were tiny threads of truth in this entirely false statement. Yes Joseph Smith was given a seer stone and yes he did at times keep it in his hat. There is a statement made well after the fact that the golden plates were found in a farmers field. Clearly, the person producing the story knew the real details that they were distorting, but went overboard sensationalizing it.

I was unwilling to believe the accusation, "Joseph Smith had many wives." I didn't know any better at the time of course. It isn't something that they ever mention in Sunday School.

Ultimately, I would say that I've found it best to take it as it comes. I don't actively seek out anti-Mormon material, but I deal with it when I encounter it. Mostly, that's because I've long since heard it all and got my mind sorted on all the stupid accusations. What you learn is simple: The answer generally lies with knowing the whole story. If you take any scripture used against us and carefully read it for yourself with and understanding of it's context, you always find that the accuser is misunderstanding the passage. A more complete and unbiased telling of a historical event will almost always turn the accusation on its head. Anti-Mormons will continue to produce new material by twisting details wherever they can. The pattern for unraveling them as they come is very easy and always the same: Go do some research and find out the true story behind the lie.

[Maya]

How do you know he didn't father any children by all those wives? He kept the wives secret, it's probable that he kept the children secret.

Because they been DNA tested. They (or their grand great children) have no JSs DNA. Only one possibility was not tested when I heard, read about this.

[Mute]

"Banned" Mormon Cartoon: Anti-Mormon Tactics Exposed!

Videos » LDS Mormon Network

I think it's important for members to be aware and prepared to deal with anti-Mormon tactics. It is only by being exposed to it, that we can know how to confront it.

Unfortunately, many members are overcome by doubt created by ridiculous propaganda like "The God Makers." For this reason, many members treat anti-Mormon literature like pornography, calling it evil and encouraging everyone to steer clear of it completely.

I think there must be a happy medium, though...moderation in reading it and careful self-examination and prayer after being exposed to it. I think that people can slowly build up an immunity to it. They can then become empowered to react correctly to it without losing faith in Mormonism.

Personally, I have overcome anti-Mormon-generated doubt by simply focusing on the innumerable positives that have come from my membership in the church, all the spiritual experiences I have had throughout my life, and all the wonderful and amazing people in the church that I have interacted with. In the end, I feel I am a more powerful instrument in the Lord's hands because of my ability to compare and contrast the negativity of anti-Mormonism and the beauty of Mormonism.

What do you think? I'm sincerely interested in hearing your thoughts.

Regards,

DefendingMormonism

I think each person is different when it comes to that. Some people feel their answers will come by just reading the scriptures and praying. Some people feel they have to know for themselves and so they search it out and look into it. I'd suggest those people look at both sides of the story instead of just those who have negative feelings towards the church. I looked at some former lds sites after I left the lds faith as well as a few claims towards lds faith. They didn't make me feel well. They honestly made me angry for the most part. I knew the answers to some of the questions without having to look them up. I stopped looking at it because I didn't like the feeling it was giving me or the manner in which it was presented. I also found that many of the subjects were not even true. Those reasons they listed never had anything to do with why I left and it was not my desire to be filled with anger.

It wasn't till many years later that I actually looked into a lot of the claims they use. The vast majority of claims are a disagreement in scriptures or accusations against Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. I tend to agree with many of the answers given by lds apologists though not all. All in all, if you're going to look into claims against the lds faith, I'd suggest looking at both sides of the story and not just looking at one.

[Melissa569]

Well, the reason agree that its important to know what anti-LDS people are saying, is because one of the favorite arguments they like to use is that we are all "being lied to".

They like to claim that the REAL doctrine is being hidden from us, and that the books we are reading (BOM, Pearl, DC) are only part of the story, and that our own church is hiding the rest from us...

You can read the above 3 books all you want, but that will only prepare you for misinterpretations people make about what is plainly written in them. In that case, you can simply open the books and point out the words to people.

But it doesn't prepare you for things that anti-LDS people claim are "left out of the books". Because obviously, opening the books to prove to people that those bits of false doctrine aren't in there, doesn't help your case.

They're just going to fire back with, "See? Its not in there! You're church is covering things up!"

Most of the non-LDS people I talk to think that the modern LDS church, is the same as the fundamentalists with multiple wives. They think all the LDS men have multiple wives. When I try to explain that this is not true, people gang up on me and say, "Well, of course she'll deny it. She's brain washed to believe that she has to protect their way of life!"

When I was 15 (and inactive), my 40-year-old neighbor saw me wearing my old CTR ring, for nostalgia sake. She said, "You should take that off and throw it away!"

When I asked her why, she said, "That church has NO respect for women. Did you know that if you go to Utah wearing that ring, a Mormon boy your age can just walk up and take you as his wife, and there would be nothing you could do about it? The laws are different out there, you wouldn't have any rights.." bla, bla, bla. Scared the daylights out of me, because I was about to travel through Utah, on my way to visit my sister! lol. I found out it wasn't true before I went, but still...

People actually think this stuff is the truth.

[Jamie123]

Well, the reason agree that its important to know what anti-LDS people are saying, is because one of the favorite arguments they like to use is that we are all "being lied to".

They like to claim that the REAL doctrine is being hidden from us, and that the books we are reading (BOM, Pearl, DC) are only part of the story, and that our own church is hiding the rest from us...

You can read the above 3 books all you want, but that will only prepare you for misinterpretations people make about what is plainly written in them. In that case, you can simply open the books and point out the words to people.

But it doesn't prepare you for things that anti-LDS people claim are "left out of the books". Because obviously, opening the books to prove to people that those bits of false doctrine aren't in there, doesn't help your case.

They're just going to fire back with, "See? Its not in there! You're church is covering things up!"

There's an old adage: "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence." It's true enough in its way, but eminently open to abuse.

[Just_A_Guy]

There's an old adage: "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence." It's true enough in its way, but eminently open to abuse.

That's funny, 'cause the way I heard it was "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Granted, that was in a BYU archaeology class . . .

[GADBabaganoosh]

Did you know that if you go to Utah wearing that ring, a Mormon boy your age can just walk up and take you as his wife, and there would be nothing you could do about it? The laws are different out there, you wouldn't have any rights.."

If only it were that easy. Sadly marriages are almost that quick. Weeklong engagements, etc.

[Dravin]

They're just going to fire back with, "See? Its not in there! You're church is covering things up!"

To which you respond, "Did you know your church actually worships Cthulhu? You only think you worship Christ but your leadership keeps it a secret, if you don't know that I'm right it's simply evidence you aren't in on the conspiracy."

Then followed shortly with, "Sounds just as stupid when you say it."

Actually a similar pattern works for a number of your examples.

[Maureen]

BTW, the "Barack the Magic Negro" phrase was originated by Rev. Al Sharpton, who said that Obama wasn't "down for the struggle" because he didn't grow up here in America. (He grew up in Indonesia and Kenya.)...

From what I have read Obama spent 4 years of his youth in Indonesia and visited Kenya when he was an adult. He spent most of his youth (the other 14 years) in Hawaii. If I remember correctly, Hawaii is part of the USA.

M.

[Maya]

Actually many of the accusitions are really funny when you think of them! People who dont even know one mormon know BETTER what we believe in than us! It si so ridiculous. Unfortunately today the accusitions creep under skin of those who dont really know the answer. Devil attacs individuals telling them things they do not want to know or hear about their religion.

I have an anti pushing on about plural marriage to a friend as he/she notised my friend for some reason dont want to discuss about taht matter... the anti says it is because my friend is ashaimed... in ALL possible ways the anti is trying to make my friend feel bad and start doubting. What the anti dont know is the real reason for not answering... could easily be that my friend has already answered the question once in that thread but the anti is not satisfied to that and then pulls me in the picture calling me lyer and more or less an stupid, unreliable person.

Many who go away from Church are the ones that have never been interested in finding out about it, so those anties can take them as they take them by suprise and ungarded. I think the biggest test for faith can become for many to believe that JS was a profet as the world today has a few things that today are considered revolting and sinfull and that in JS time was practiced. An important thing that they do not realise is that even IF JS had done somethig wrong it would not deminish his profetic calling. IF it did then many other OT profet should not be called that either. Many lived in plural marriage, many did things in their life that were not right, Jona even tried to escape his task.

We need to learn to trust what we know and dont get bothered of what we dont know.

Today in the RS meeting a lady told about a place from BoM where she thougth was a mistake... and said there are more than that mistake, too bad such thinggs are not discussed about there adn then (no time) except in the institutt once in 4 years. Or if the person asks the bishop or any other priesthood person. There was a bit of panic and some said that there is no mistakes in the BoM. I agree with that but sometimes some things are said a bit weird and like I think it was Mormon or Moroni who said that if there are mistakes they are made by a man not God.

I think FAIR Wikipedia is a very good sauce for truth. Too bad that too is often seen as a totally defending site, even though it has many non mormon links and referances and a very good scolarly aproach. Sometimes it does take a few rights to show the riduiculoseness of the anties accusitions.

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

I just found this from a website called Ex-Mormon's for Jesus. Here is the mentality of those within the Evangelical Community, and those who had once embraced the Restored Gospel:

As many of us were once deceived victims ourselves, we must publicly expose and answer the attack of Mormon doctrine, lest our silence be thought of as approval! It is sad but true that in answering the many broad attacks made upon Christianity by the cult of Mormonism, we are often the ones who come off appearing to be "negative." Regardless of any appearances, we have no choice but to "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints..." (Jude 3).

I emphasize two sentences that present the Evangelical mindset when it comes to Mormonism and how and why they are militant in their approach.

This viewpoint is where the heart of Anti-Mormonism sentiment rests. The Modern Evangelical (and the LDS Apostate) are led to believe that it is Mormonism that presents an attack on Christianity, and Orthodox Christian teaching. Those who once believed in the Mormon Faith now claim to have been "deceived" and even embrace the idea that they were "brainwashed" by the so-called Mopologist Corporation of Mormonism.

As sad as it is, many Evangelicals are aggressive toward Mormonism because of the viewpoint they are buying into.

Let us take a typical everyday scenario and discuss the implications thereof.

You are eating lunch and are reading the latest edition of the Ensign on your lunch break. A new co-worker that you have come to know comes in to have lunch with you. Curious as to what you are reading, the two of you engage in conversation about the article - a First Presidency Message. The new co-worker informs you that they have just started studying about the Mormon Faith at Church, this is because there is a class his/her church just started up. They then say they have some questions and shares with you what was discussed.

How does one respond to this?

Scenario 2; Your son/daughter goes to a mutual activity that they were invited to. Their friend said that it is a something their Church is putting on, and your son/daughter wanted to go. As a parent, you give your permission and know that you trust your son/daughter. Later that night, your child comes home in a very different mood. Sensing something wrong, you go in and talk with them and they share with you that this "church activity" was about the Mormon Faith and it was based upon a person who claimed to have been a long time member of the Church and how he found that Mormonism is wrong, sharing about his experiences in the Temple, even showing pictures on a Powerpoint slide of the Garments and some of the rituals within the Temple.

How do you respond to this?

Scenario 3: You happened to see the missionaries out and about. Inviting them to sit with you as you are having lunch, the conversation is about how they are doing, what they are doing when a person comes to the table with a bible and begins to ask the missionary questions, opening pages, flipping pages, pointing, and firing questions off about how Mormonism could possibly be compatible with Christianity?

How do you respond to this?

There are a myriad of scenarios that could be posted here. The fact remains, how do we as members of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ respond? How do we answer the critics questions?

Even more so, you are a teacher in a Gospel Doctrine Class, or a Doctrine Essentials class. A visitor raises their hand and begins to share Anti-Mormon Rhetoric and misinformation, how do you as a teacher respond? How do you as a participant respond?

Even those in leadership, how do they respond?

Anti-Mormon sentiment is a very aggressive and real problem. As I have stated before, modern Evangelicals hold classes, have seminars, even special preaching events where someone comes in and "indoctrinates" the audience as to the "dangers" of Mormonism.

This can be done in a private setting - being invited over to dinner and having to sit through someone who says they "know Mormonism" because they were once a member of the Faith and that they discovered the real Jesus. Or, it can be done in a very public setting.

While I agree, sometimes the best way to respond is by simply stating your testimony and walking away, other times, one has to answer these questions.