Anti-religion literature?

[Faithless]

I was always taught growing up, both by my parents and the church, that you shouldn't read books such as "The God Delusion", by Richard Dawkins, or "God is Not Great", by Christopher Hitchens. After leaving the church for personal reasons, I read both of these books. The God Delusion didn't even mention the LDS church, and God is Not Great briefly covered it, only giving a short history of it, then moved on to religion itself. Now I ask myself, why is it considered bad to read these books? It's just reading the other side of the story. Being told not to read these is like someone from a political party saying that they are right, but not to research the other party and saying that they are the wrong way to vote.

I was just a little confused by this and wanted your guy's opinion. Thanks!

[livy111us]

I believe it is because we are taught to feast upon the words of Christ. Anti-Mormon literature is quite the opposite and does not bring one to Christ. In fact, it can be looked at as food poison instead of the feast. We are supposed to cleave to that which is good, not the very opposite.

[pam]

Exactly my thoughts. You beat me to it.

[Faithless]

So, what you're saying is, if you read the other side then you're sinning? Or, as you put it, eating poisoned food? Isn't that pretty much what a lier would say? If I lived by the philosophy that I should only read what I believe in, then wouldn't that mean that I shouldn't read the Book of Mormon or the Bible?

[pam]

He didn't mention sinning. We believe, since you are asking our thoughts, that we should read or watch things that would be uplifting to us. To our beliefs. Reading anti-material would not be uplifting and would tend to bring us down. That is what we believe.

[Traveler]

So, what you're saying is, if you read the other side then you're sinning? Or, as you put it, eating poisoned food? Isn't that pretty much what a lier would say? If I lived by the philosophy that I should only read what I believe in, then wouldn't that mean that I shouldn't read the Book of Mormon or the Bible?

If I desired to learn mathematics - why should I seek out a teacher that cannot do math and has failed at math?

It does not matter what you believe in or what you do not believe in - if you are going to learn something - learn from someone that is the best - a success not a failure. I am not a Muslim but when I want to know something about Muslims - I seek out a devout Muslim. Prejudice and hate come from idiots. If you want to fill your heart with prejudice and hate then definitely seek out the idiots.

The Traveler

[Faithless]

I, too, would go to a math teacher for learning mathematics. But religion isn't a fact based product, like math. It's faith based. If I were to seek out religion, and the truth of god, I would not search only one place, but many. I would seek places where people succeed at seeing god, such as religion, and people who fail at seeing god, to know which one I personally believe. Looking for the truth about a subject means reading both sides. Being told by one side not to read the other side's facts, to me, seems like the acts of a liar.

[Mute]

I was always taught growing up, both by my parents and the church, that you shouldn't read books such as "The God Delusion", by Richard Dawkins, or "God is Not Great", by Christopher Hitchens. After leaving the church for personal reasons, I read both of these books. The God Delusion didn't even mention the LDS church, and God is Not Great briefly covered it, only giving a short history of it, then moved on to religion itself. Now I ask myself, why is it considered bad to read these books? It's just reading the other side of the story. Being told not to read these is like someone from a political party saying that they are right, but not to research the other party and saying that they are the wrong way to vote.

I was just a little confused by this and wanted your guy's opinion. Thanks!

Those books didn't come out more than 4 or 5 years ago so you were probably around 14 or 15 when they came out. The vast majority of lds are not taught about these books if any outside your home town. These are not the ones that so many lds are against. I've never personally read these two books but the general majority of lds usually just try to avoid the hateful books and articles directed towards the lds faith which they refer to as "Anti Mormon Material". I don't personally see it as wrong to hear different points of views such as in the books you mentioned, though I have not personally read them. Hearing opposite points of views can help you to be more open minded and it may either strengthen your already current beliefs or it may cause you to question them but I've never read these two books you mentioned.

I have read a lot of material directed towards the lds faith though and a lot of that I would never recommend anyone to read in order to get an opposing point of view. The reason is because of the atmosphere and tone of it all. It is very hateful and much of it is exaggerated and simply not true. That makes me not want to read it. They don't seek to simply give facts. Some of it is true but why do they need to say so much that isn't true with what they are saying? That is not an accurate description of what lds believe and they're not out to spread honesty about what the lds believe. So if I wanted to obtain accurate opposing views about what the lds church believes or has done, I would be very cautious in where I got it from.

Richard Dawkins, I consider a smart man but he does seem pretty angry a lot. If I were him, which I'm not, I would find a career that did not make me unhappy. If religion bothers him so much, I'd just stay away from it and be happy. Even if he destroyed it, would he be happy or would he just not have anything to do then? I don't want to go through my life mad at something. You do have to learn to let go or you will never find peace.

What you will find is much of the outspoken hostility towards the lds faith comes from two main groups. The first are former lds mormons. I don't mean all of them. While all former lds leave for a variety of reasons, many who leave the lds faith simply move on and continue with their life. Then there are those who have left and are unwilling to let go. They are unwilling to move on with their life. Instead they become obsessed with the lds faith. Seeking only it's destruction. They blame the lds faith for their unhappiness. They feel they were wronged. I don't know each person's individual circumstances but if someone really really really wants to devote their entire life to trying to tear down a religion, then they should tell the truth in the material they spread.

The second are intolerant Christians. People who are unwilling to allow others to have a differing belief of scripture interpretation than themselves. To them, a person is not Christian unless they believe the scriptures mean as they say it does. By the way, I am also former lds and I left at the same age you are now so I am speaking from experience.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Mute

[slamjet]

I equate anti-mormon literature with pornography. Sure, you can turn to porn to learn about sex, but how real will the information be and how healthy would you be afterward?

[pam]

I, too, would go to a math teacher for learning mathematics. But religion isn't a fact based product, like math. It's faith based. If I were to seek out religion, and the truth of god, I would not search only one place, but many. I would seek places where people succeed at seeing god, such as religion, and people who fail at seeing god, to know which one I personally believe. Looking for the truth about a subject means reading both sides. Being told by one side not to read the other side's facts, to me, seems like the acts of a liar.

Listen, we aren't telling you don't go read them. Read them if that if your choice. You asked our thoughts on why we, as lds, may not read them. We are giving your OUR thoughts. Our thoughts as to why we personally would probably stay away from them.

Mute has some excellent points btw.

[Traveler]

I, too, would go to a math teacher for learning mathematics. But religion isn't a fact based product, like math. It's faith based. If I were to seek out religion, and the truth of god, I would not search only one place, but many. I would seek places where people succeed at seeing god, such as religion, and people who fail at seeing god, to know which one I personally believe. Looking for the truth about a subject means reading both sides. Being told by one side not to read the other side's facts, to me, seems like the acts of a liar.

I submit you are much more likely to find liars among those that are more worried about what is wrong with everybody else than they are concerned about what is right about themselves. Especially religion - I am much more interested in those that have found something than I am those that have not found anything worth being happy themselves about.

Jesus is known as "The Advocate". One of the titles of Satan is "The Accuser".

The Traveler

[Faithless]

Firstly, Mute. I have not read or seen anything anti-Mormon, just anti-religion. And those books were specifically mentioned to me by a BYU professor about two years ago, along with other books by those two authors. Also, I wouldn't consider Richard Dawkins to be angry. He likes to debate a lot, but that doesn't make him angry. In what I've watched with him (and believe me, it's a lot), he seems to be very calm and gentle. Even in his debates, he never yells or calls people names. Also, his career isn't religion, or even anti-religion. It's evolution. And trust me, that makes him very, very happy.

Secondly, slamjet. I wouldn't compare atheistic books to pornography. Pornography is there for guys to fill their basic sexual urges and serve only that purpose. I don't look to pornography for answers, and neither should anyone else. However, books that say there is no god aren't there to satisfy urges, they are there to try and teach people why they believe there is no god, and to give an understanding of how life and the universe came to be.

Lastly, Pam. I thank you greatly for your thoughts on as to why you personally wouldn't read them, I am not, however, asking that question. I am asking why the church doesn't want me to read them, as a member, and as to why the church is against it, not you personally.

[Faithless]

I submit you are much more likely to find liars among those that are more worried about what is wrong with everybody else than they are concerned about what is right about themselves. Especially religion - I am much more interested in those that have found something than I am those that have not found anything worth being happy themselves about.

To me, looking for a right religion is like shopping. If a salesman walks up to you and tells you about his product, you have to be skeptical about it. However, if there is someone who doesn't like the product, or has tried the product and stopped using it, then I would like to hear their opinion. Also, I believe that you have to be skeptical about both sides. There will be just as many liars on one side than the other. What you have to do is look at the facts of both sides and see if they match up with the facts of real life.

[pam]

I submit you are much more likely to find liars among those that are more worried about what is wrong with everybody else than they are concerned about what is right about themselves. Especially religion - I am much more interested in those that have found something than I am those that have not found anything worth being happy themselves about.

To me, looking for a right religion is like shopping. If a salesman walks up to you and tells you about his product, you have to be skeptical about it. However, if there is someone who doesn't like the product, or has tried the product and stopped using it, then I would like to hear their opinion. Also, I believe that you have to be skeptical about both sides. There will be just as many liars on one side than the other. What you have to do is look at the facts of both sides and see if they match up with the facts of real life.

But then again, is that person who is giving out such negative comments basing it on the fact that they didn't live up to the standards prescribed by the religion and therefore excommunicated? There are many such people and many times that is where these comments are coming from. So not a very unbiased opinion.

[Mute]

A BYU professor is not the lds church. If a member of the 12 or the president of the lds church says it's bad to read, then I'd say the church was saying it but a byu professor isn't the same as the church saying anything. That's not even a calling.

[pam]

Lastly, Pam. I thank you greatly for your thoughts on as to why you personally wouldn't read them, I am not, however, asking that question. I am asking why the church doesn't want me to read them, as a member, and as to why the church is against it, not you personally.

And I gave you my answer as what the Church says and what I personally believe. Again, the Church (our church leaders) have counseled us to read things that are spiritually uplifting. Anti mormon literature is not spiritually uplifting.

[Faithless]

But then again, is that person who is giving out such negative comments basing it on the fact that they didn't live up to the standards prescribed by the religion and therefore excommunicated? There are many such people and many times that is where these comments are coming from. So not a very unbiased opinion.

The person who is trying to sell the religion is just as capable of lying as the person who wasn't living up to the standards. Also, whether either side is lying or not, you must look at all of the evidence from both sides.

[Dravin]

The person who is trying to sell the religion is just as capable of lying as the person who wasn't living up to the standards. Also, whether either side is lying or not, you must look at all of the evidence from both sides.

Every study World War 2? How much holocaust denial literature have you read? Not all sources of inquiry are equal and as a general rule that which is generally termed anti is the equivalent of holocaust denial literature in rigour. Yes we can get technical and term anything that concludes the church isn't true is anti but in my experience that's not what is generally meant. It's a class of literature rather than a position. This applies to more than just anti-Mormon literature too, I suspect all religions have a similar class of literature directed at it. Heck, it isn't just religions, you get stuff like Moon Landing Hoax literature (and the aforementioned holocaust denier literature).

Edited February 27, 2011 by Dravin

[Faithless]

A BYU professor is not the lds church. If a member of the 12 or the president of the lds church says it's bad to read, then I'd say the church was saying it but a byu professor isn't the same as the church saying anything. That's not even a calling.

Mute, I agree. A BYU professor isn't the LDS church, and those two books the church, as far as I know, the church doesn't go out against. You mentioned earlier, however, that you read anti-Mormon literature. Can you give examples so I know what the church asks us not to read specifically?

[jayanna]

I was always taught growing up, both by my parents and the church, that you shouldn't read books such as "The God Delusion", by Richard Dawkins, or "God is Not Great", by Christopher Hitchens. After leaving the church for personal reasons, I read both of these books. The God Delusion didn't even mention the LDS church, and God is Not Great briefly covered it, only giving a short history of it, then moved on to religion itself. Now I ask myself, why is it considered bad to read these books? It's just reading the other side of the story. Being told not to read these is like someone from a political party saying that they are right, but not to research the other party and saying that they are the wrong way to vote.

I was just a little confused by this and wanted your guy's opinion. Thanks!

the title of this post is about anti-mormon literature...I don't read anti-anything

the title "The God Delusion" tells me that it is against something that other people believe

also "God is Not Great" tells me that this person wrote this literature in order to explain why someone else's belief is bad.

Don't get me wrong, I work in a library (don't judge a book, etc, etc), but the titles kinda give them away

The best way to find out if a religion is right, is to ask God about it. Get it from the horse's mouth so to speak.

A couple of other ways until your prayer is answered:

1. live it. If it works, it is valid

2. judge it by its fruits

If you already think that reading it is the right thing to do, then why did you ask? You knew how we were going to respond. Was it so you could reiterate to yourself that it was a reasonable thing to do? Not that I'm angry, just kinda weirded out. Also if you wanted to know why the church doesn't want you to read it, ask the church (like a priesthood holder who is in stewardship over you and can recieve revelation for your benefit) We are members of the church, not the church itself. On the most fundamental level, since the church is built on the cornerstone of Christ, ask Him.

[Faithless]

the title of this post is about anti-mormon literature...I don't read anti-anything

the title "The God Delusion" tells me that it is against something that other people believe

also "God is Not Great" tells me that this person wrote this literature in order to explain why someone else's belief is bad.

Don't get me wrong, I work in a library (don't judge a book, etc, etc), but the titles kinda give them away

The best way to find out if a religion is right, is to ask God about it. Get it from the horse's mouth so to speak.

A couple of other ways until your prayer is answered:

1. live it. If it works, it is valid

2. judge it by its fruits

If you already think that reading it is the right thing to do, then why did you ask? You knew how we were going to respond. Was it so you could reiterate to yourself that it was a reasonable thing to do? Not that I'm angry, just kinda weirded out. Also if you wanted to know why the church doesn't want you to read it, ask the church (like a priesthood holder who is in stewardship over you and can recieve revelation for your benefit) We are members of the church, not the church itself. On the most fundamental level, since the church is built on the cornerstone of Christ, ask Him.

Well, they are both Anti-religion. Not really anti-Mormon, but anti-religion none the less. Also, I used to by LDS. I have lived it, and it didn't work out for me. And I haven't thought of asking a member of the priesthood. I just thought of the question tonight, but I'm sure I can find someone to ask who is an official member who knows the answers to my questions.

Lastly, I've prayed plenty of times and gotten no answers. I've asked Christ to explain many things, none of which he has answered.

[pam]

Well, they are both Anti-religion. Not really anti-Mormon, but anti-religion none the less. Also, I used to by LDS. I have lived it, and it didn't work out for me. And I haven't thought of asking a member of the priesthood. I just thought of the question tonight, but I'm sure I can find someone to ask who is an official member who knows the answers to my questions.

Lastly, I've prayed plenty of times and gotten no answers. I've asked Christ to explain many things, none of which he has answered.

When you say a member of the Priesthood are you talking about a Priesthood leader? And when you say an official member..what does that mean exactly? There have been both official members and Priesthood holders that have responded to this thread.

While Mute is not a member, he has given some excellent thoughts to this thread.

Edited February 27, 2011 by pam

[jayanna]

If you really want to know, you have to search (the scriptures and your patriarchal blessing) ponder (it in your mind) and pray (humbly, and being willing to do whatever action that answer requires of you)

Reading other people's opinions and guesswork is only going to make it worse.

If you want a question about a church policy answered, best to ask that priesthood holder. We are all official members, but when a priesthood holder is called to serve your needs, he has the right to recieve revelation to help you.

Sorry to point this out, but reading anti-religion materials is not living the gospel.

Christ loves you and is aware of your needs. He has already provided for your spiritual care. Christ has given you a lot of things, He has already explained this to you, it is wrong to read these type of materials, you have recieved that answer and you did not listen. You have to do this by faith, we are on the Earth to gain faith. It is going to take faith, not evidence or clever reasoning, to find truth about matters of faith.

Sometimes He answers our prayers by sending a message through somebody else. Whether by His mouth, or by the mouth of His prophets, it is the same. He has sent you Prophets and priesthood holders like your Bishop and Home Teachers to help you. You should use those resources that have been put into place for you and not be carried about to and fro with every wind of philosophy like a feather on a breeze. Use what He has already sent you. A drowning man should not turn away a boat.

You have my best wishes. :)

[Mute]

Mute, I agree. A BYU professor isn't the LDS church, and those two books the church, as far as I know, the church doesn't go out against. You mentioned earlier, however, that you read anti-Mormon literature. Can you give examples so I know what the church asks us not to read specifically?

The church does not name specific pieces of literature. You have to use your own discretion but if you find yourself reading something about the lds faith and it distorts the truth in a very hateful atmosphere, then I would avoid it.

There is a very big difference in the way anti Mormon literature is written and the way an opposite point of view is written. Let me give you an example of what I mean. There are many sites where people know full well the true meanings yet they choose to give false meaning. An example is saying the upside down stars on some of the temples are actually there because the lds worship Satan. They know full well that that is not the reason why those symbols are there but that doesn't stop them from saying it. They don't tell the truth in what they say. Another example is them stating Satan and Jesus are brothers and implying there is something sinister about it. As if they're the tag team match up of Ryu and Ken and that Satan is the evil twin brother of Jesus yet they fail to mention that the lds believe all people are brothers and sisters. That you and I are no more Christ's brothers than Satan is. They don't try to give you the correct impression. That is what I mean by distorting the truth. Their only goal is to make you hate the lds church and give you the worst possible impression of it.

Another thing is they quote hear say as facts and many times they don't have anything to back up what they say. Many of the accusations towards Joseph Smith are not from first hand accounts. They're from 3rd and 4th hand accounts.

If I were going to give you an opposing view point of why you shouldn't be in the lds church or why I felt it was evil (which I don't feel that way), I would do it honestly and I would provide the information I have accurately and clearly so you could see every reason why I believe that way. If the lds church was really doing something bad, I shouldn't have to distort the truth to make it seem evil. I should have over whelming evidence to show others hey this isn't a good place to be. They don't have that though. They just make bleep up and get really really angry.

There is a very big difference in how the lds missionaries promote their beliefs than how those who seek to destroy it do. The lds missionaries tell about what they believe in and they have something to sell. Other people seem to just want to run it down and give it a bad image. That's a very bad sale technique. They don't have anything to promote their own product so they run down the lds faith so people won't go to it rather than their own church. If their own church was worth a bleep, they wouldn't have to do that. I have no respect for churches who do that or encourage others to do that.

[pam]

Mute I you. That was so eloquently written and just exactly to the point.