The Affect of Anti-Mormon Propaganda

[pam]

I think it's important to attempt to understand another's religion so that our discussions have more meaning. Trying to debate something we ourselves do not understand is pointless.

[Guest]

Affect is a verb, Effect is the noun

I was devout Catholic. Now I'm LDS. I wouldn't have become LDS if I had to become anti-Catholic to do so - that is, rejecting everything I learned as a Catholic.

But, I wouldn't have become LDS if I didn't branch out of deeply held Catholic beliefs and studied the Great Apostasy...

Now, here's the crazy thing - looking at it point-blank, the Great Apostasy is, of course, anti-Catholic. That's why it took me years of trying and can never get past the first paragraph on the first page of the book. And years of Missionary discussions before I can get past lesson 3 (where they pile up the cups).

The only way I was able to get through the Great Apostasy was through the guidance of the Holy Spirit - with prayer and fasting. When I felt I was spiritually ready to accept/reject the things mentioned in the book, I sat down to read it - and was able to read the entire book from cover to cover in one sitting. Because, the way the Spirit manifested the truth to me is not through anti-Catholic sentiment, but through a progression... so that, it truly felt like I was in first grade and now I'm in 2nd grade - and all the things I have a testimony on in 1st grade is still true. Just like how when you learn multiplication, it doesn't make addition false...

The moral of my story - you can't lock yourself in your own belief system and think it's enough of a testimony. Catholics believe they are the One True Church. LDS believe they are the One True Church. Who got it right? You won't find out until you study both of them - not as an anti-something looking for the flaws so you can feel secure about what you believe in - but as a spiritual journey, sincerely seeking for truth with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, surrendering your will to God.

So that, if somebody tells me they were Mormon and now are devout Catholics because they were guided by the Holy Spirit, it wouldn't surprise me at all - it wouldn't even be wrong. Because, I am not the god of the Holy Ghost. I am in no position to question what He feels is the best path for each and everyone of us to get to Heavenly Father's Kingdom.

[prisonchaplain]

Anatess brings up a great irony to this whole string...at the end of the day, the message of the Restored Gospel is, though often in a most gentle way, an Anti Catholic and Anti Protestant one. Oh, it's not angry, seldom directly accusatory--but the bottom line is that of deficiency.

One of our Jehovah's Witness volunteers was much more direct in an off-handed comment he made recently, "Martin Luther pointed out some errors in practice, but failed to get at the doctrinal errors. Protestants carried those on in their churches..."

My own church sometimes gets this. I'm asked what kind of church I go to. I say, "We're full gospel." "Oh...so you think we're not???" Or I say, "We're Spirit-filled." Again, "And, we're not???" You see how this can go?

Anytime there is something restored, the restorers are Anti-establishment, and the establishment is Anti-restoration.

As we mods are often taught to admonish...The key is simply that we play nice.

[Vida]

Much appreciated for your feedbacks! Yes, I am keeping my mind open so that I could understand my Catholic friend better and vice versa. I got the statement from the author's email that there could not be an LDS Church without a Catholic Church. One had to fall away and one had to rise. You will find in studying the doctrines how the LDS doctrines appear to be Catholic doctrines restored.

It is going to be an interesting and learning experience for me to read in more chapters. Have a good day, readers!

[Traveler]

Slamjet has it right:

Jesus is the advocate with the Father. Advocate is a very important title and designation of the Christ. Those that are disciples of Jesus are disciples of being an advocate themselves.

Satan by both title and disposition is the accuser. It does not matter what is being accused only that he will win over disciples willing to accuse.

Jude 1:9-10 “Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The L-rd rebuke thee.

But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.”

A Christian believes in Christ, they teach of Christ and they would that all understand and learn of Christ. When anyone takes it upon themselves to accuse a disbeliever rather than to lift and call to repentance - they will corrupt themselves.

Many times I have suggested that if someone is to learn a thing they should seek out the best and most successful advocates of that thing they can find. If you would learn mathematics seek out the successful believer and advocate of mathematics. I strongly suggest that you avoid at all costs failures of math and accusers of mathematics. The reason is because such accusers - by their purpose are encouraged to lie and distort and operate in darkness. It is the advocate that by purpose must be truthful and stand in the light.

The Traveler

Edited April 25, 2011 by Traveler

[Guest tbaird22]

Ive acquired a lot of doubt on a lot of different subjects thanks to many friends, family members, peers, etc who didnt think i should be LDS anymore. One thing i never doubted was my Savior, Jesus Christ. Thankfully he is the cornerstone of our church and everything else are mere appendages unto him. This year in seminary our teacher taught that when we begin to question anything about the church you can go 2 ways with it.

1 The doubt route. Either you do nothing and it eats away at your testimony.

Or

2 the hope rope. Seek answers to things you dont understand and Just keep hope that one day everything will be made clear.

Nowadays, i realize theres too much to try and understand and that theirs to much antimormon material to know all the comebacks so i just keep the hope

[spamlds]

A little background first--

Being a convert to the Church, I had never even met a Mormon to my knowledge before my introduction to it. I knew about the Mormons from American history and I didn't have any particular biases. It would have never dawned on me that people would spend their lives trying to destroy any religion.

When I first met up with the Church, I was amazed at the straightforwardness of its missionary message, which was "read the Book of Mormon and ask God if it's true." I was astounded that the members had enough faith to make the claim. All the other denominations I had ever encountered told me simply to believe because the Bible said to believe. (But of course, all of them said the Bible meant something different, so that approach didn't instill a lot of confidence.)

I received a direct answer to my prayer about the Book of Mormon after I had only read it for a couple of days. I was astounded. I figured I would probably spend months reading it, comparing it to proof texts, and researching. The key was, if I determined that it was true, I was committed to following the truth, no matter where it would lead. God has respect to that kind of sincerity and commitment. I don't credit the fact that I got my answer so quick to anything that I did--it was just God's grace.

Now, here's where the anti-Mormonism comes in. When I had received an answer about the Book of Mormon, I only knew one LDS person--the co-worker who gave me the book. I didn't know where the Church was. I had never been to a LDS service. I did; however, know completely that the Book of Mormon was from God and that Joseph Smith was a prophet. As a result of accepting those two truths, I had to come to grips that, suddenly, unexpectedly, I was now a Christian. If the Book of Mormon was true, I was now certain that Jesus Christ was the Savior and the only way to salvation.

The next time I saw that co-worker, I told him about what had happened to me and that I wanted to join the Church. He was astonished. Seven days later, I was on my way with him and several other young adults, to the Hill Cumorah Pageant. It was there that I saw anti-Mormons for the first time. They were carrying signs and they were shouting offensive messages at the passers-by. When I saw them, the Bible verses came to mind that those who would persecute Jesus' followers would think they were doing service to God.

Then, in the following weeks, as I finished the missionary lessons, a nice Baptist lady across the street from us, who had never even so much as spoken to me in the months we had lived there, suddenly took interest in the welfare of my soul. Why? Because she had seen the missionaries come to the house. She told my parents, who she hardly knew, that Mormons were a cult and that they would destroy our home and family. She upset my mother greatly and I thought, because of her influence, that my parents were going to expel me from the house and disown me if I joined the Church.

Everything settled down in time. After my baptism, that lady never said so much as "boo" to us again. It was like she was one of those "Agent Smiths" in the movie "The Matrix." My sister eventually followed me into the Church, then my parents sometime later.

I marveled at the time that, for 19 years, Satan had never once taken note of my existence. When I prepared to leave his kingdom and enter the kingdom of God, suddenly I showed up on the "radar screen" and his fiery darts started flying my way.

Since that time, I have seen others come under fire in similar ways. I noticed patterns in how those attacks come. I started to notice who the adversary uses to do his work. The end result of that fascination is the S.P.A.M. web site where we examine anti-Mormon tactics and methods.

Anti-Mormonism tends to go in waves. The last big wave was just before 1900. It was related to the political controversy over the election of B.H. Roberts to the Senate and the Senate refused to seat him. That was when the last recorded lynching of a latter-day saint took place in the South. Now, because of Mitt Romney and Proposition 8, we have become prominent in the public consciousness again. That inevitably leads to more conversions, but it also will generate anti-Mormon responses in a big way. The anti-Mormons are leveraging the Internet for their use, but the Church is also doing so very effectively. It's a sign that the Church has come forth out of obscurity and out of darkness. Zion's light is rolling back the adversary's influence, and he doesn't like that.

If anything, anti-Mormonism has convinced me that the Church is true even more. In football, everyone wants to tackle the guy with the ball. If we didn't have the keys of the kingdom, nobody would care anything about us.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Question: How much has anti-Mormon propaganda affected the way you perceive The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

This question seems to be aimed at those outside the LDS church (like me). My first encounter with anti-LDS literature was a pamplet entitled, "Is the Mormon my brother?" that I found among many other pamplets in the First Church of the Nazarine I grew up in. Since then, I've encountered a lot more on the subject with temperments ranging from doubtful to outright hostile.

The main thrust of the evangelical argument, aside from contesting the historical accounts of Joseph Smith and the BoM, seems to be that Mormons are not, or may not, be saved because they believe in a different Jesus and a different gospel in accordance to this passage:

2 Corinthians 11:4

For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it!

Conveniently enough, their Jesus and gospel are the correct ones.

What drew me to the Catholic Church over the years was the absence of hate and condemnation by comparison to our evangelical brethren who seem all too eager to prescreen people's eternal fate as a favor to God. The Catholic Church taught me to see God as merciful and rather than looking for any excuse to send people to hell, God reaches out to save as many as possible to take them home to heaven. This idea that God would condemn those who follow Jesus but not the "right" Jesus based on errors in doctrine is estranged from God's true and loving character. Rather than looking for an excuse to condemn, God is looking for any mitigating evidence to save as many as possible. This is an inclination that many evangelicals fail to grasp.

There are some things about the LDS that I strongly contest and always will, among them, the Book of Mormon and the outlandish claims of Joseph Smith. But I see none of that as important in the grander scheme. Let evangelicals pick at doctrines and history. I am more impressed by the faith, values, and community of the LDS. Their model of charity is one to be esteemed. I have no doubt in my mind that the LDS follow and serve the same Jesus I do. I don't look for reasons to exclude others and I've learned to expell the often hateful viewpoints of my evangelical upbringing.

And doing so, I feel I know God better than ever before.

[Elphaba]

Affect is a verb, Effect is the noun

I'm not sure what you're responding to here, but "effect" is also a verb.

Elph

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

:offtopic:I'm not sure what you're responding to here, but "effect" is also a verb.

Elph

True. As in "effect a change."

[spamlds]

In Saintmichaeldefendthem1's comment, he seems conciliatory right up unto the moment he mentions his rejection of the "outlandish claims of Joseph Smith." I have to respond to this.

All religious claims are outlandish--of every single religion on the earth. I say this because I was the biggest skeptic you can imagine before I came to faith through the revelation of Jesus Christ to me personally. That revelation came to me through the Book of Mormon.

All religion deals with the supernatural. Until a person experiences it, it is all outlandish claims. To claim that an Old Testament prophet made an axe float on water or made the sun go back in the sky several degrees is outlandish. To say that a man turned water into wine, walked on water, and healed people with the touch of his hand is outlandish. Most outlandish of all is to say that a man was crucified, died, and rose again three days later!

All of those things are outlandish to those who are without faith. Is it not outlandish to believe that a priest can bless a little wafer and it literally becomes the body and blood of Jesus? Yes, that's outlandish. It's every bit as much as outlandish as any claim made by anything ever taught by Joseph Smith.

Religion is outlandish to anyone who has not experienced the divine nature. When one has experienced that, then suddenly many things become quite reasonable and sensible. Please don't tell me that Joseph Smith made outlandish claims unless you are prepared to admit that the appearances of the Blessed Virgin to St. Bernadette at Lourdes or Fatima are outlandish.

When we are speaking of spiritual things, we need to leave each other some wiggle room because it is completely possible that we have not yet seen but "through a glass darkly" at this point. Religious people who claim that other religions are outlandish are throwing stones in a glass house.

God bears witness of truth as fast as we are able to receive it. The "nozzle" that controls the flow of spiritual insight is on our end of the hose. Some people want to drink as it trickles from the hose, others want to receive all that there is available. It's a shame when some people turn off the nozzle and say that the well has run dry.

Edited April 27, 2011 by spamlds
fix typo

[rufuswhitman]

On the contrary- many of them are love-filled bigots, who use a little knowledge and a lot of genuine concern to justify trying to remake you in their image.

Based on a half-grain of fact, and a truck-load of assumption- they know just how to make your life as perfect as their's is........

...the hatred and anger generally don't crop up until you refuse to accept how enlightened and reasonable they are and fail to bow at their idol's clay.

I appreciate what you are saying here. I would like to point out that when I was struggling, I experienced the exact same thing coming from fellow members. I, at that time, came away disappointed from the well-intentioned but ill-informed advice.

RW

[Guest]

:offtopic:I'm not sure what you're responding to here, but "effect" is also a verb.

Elph

When you're saying "The (Affect) of Anti-Mormon Propaganda" you're needing the noun. Not the verb. So you say, "The Effect of... ".

And English is my 3rd language. Yep.

[Elphaba]

When you're saying "The (Affect) of Anti-Mormon Propaganda" you're needing the noun. Not the verb. So you say, "The Effect of... ".

And English is my 3rd language. Yep.

Ahh, I see. I didn't know what the context was, and you're right, of course. Thanks for the clarification.

Elph

Edited April 28, 2011 by Elphaba

[Backroads]

I am truly enjoying the grammar debate. Now I'm overanalyzing the thread title.

[Javajot]

I am in no position to question what He feels is the best path for each and everyone of us to get to Heavenly Father's Kingdom.

Heavenly Father has made it perfectly clear that there is only one way to get back home. There is only one straight and narrow path that leads back to our Father in Heaven's presence, and if someone is led off that path I guarantee it was not the Holy Spirit that talked them into falling away.

[Javajot]

The moral of my story - you can't lock yourself in your own belief system and think it's enough of a testimony. Catholics believe they are the One True Church. LDS believe they are the One True Church. Who got it right? You won't find out until you study both of them...

Oh, and I found out the truth without studying Catholicism. The Mormons are right, btw

[Guest]

Heavenly Father has made it perfectly clear that there is only one way to get back home. There is only one straight and narrow path that leads back to our Father in Heaven's presence, and if someone is led off that path I guarantee it was not the Holy Spirit that talked them into falling away.

What way is that?

If an LDS tells you Jesus Christ is the one way to get back home he is right, but if a Baptist tells you Jesus Christ is the one way to get back home, he is wrong?

You can't guarantee anything. You do not know the heart of the someone you are referring to. An LDS member who cannot keep his covenants may be in a lot worse position than the Baptist who is steadily keeping the promises he made as a Baptist and progressing closer to God. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Holy Ghost leads the LDS member to the Baptist church to straighten him out before he gets himself in bigger trouble.

Edited April 28, 2011 by anatess

[Guest]

Oh, and I found out the truth without studying Catholicism. The Mormons are right, btw

Prove it.

P.S. You can't find out the truth of the LDS Church without touching on Catholicism. The entire faith is founded on a Restored Gospel. You kinda have to know what it was restored from. Unless you've never studied the Great Apostasy. So yeah, I call bologna on that.

Edited April 28, 2011 by anatess

[Blackmarch]

Prove it.

P.S. You can't find out the truth of the LDS Church without touching on Catholicism. The entire faith is founded on a Restored Gospel. You kinda have to know what it was restored from. Unless you've never studied the Great Apostasy. So yeah, I call bologna on that.

To know God's truth one needs to have revelation from God, to get that some may have to be in other churches first and search from there. others may require some sort of significant event in their life, others may be so in tune with the spirit that they may not need that research.

Everybody is different, what makes one person ready to recieve direction from the Holy spirit may not be the same as what the next person needs.

I know people who were lead by God from church to church, otherwise had God lead them straight to the LDS church they would not have had the strength to stay in it. I know others who recieved a witness the moment they came through the chapel doors, and that was enough for them to know it was true.

I think most lie somewhere inbetween, where we do have to put effort into researching (which usually does take one into early church/catholic history)

[prisonchaplain]

Anatess is on to something here. I come from a different perspective, but will share a common journey I have seen. A young adult who is living the typical non-religious life of fun, parties, etc. hears the gospel from a very conservative Christian source. He makes a radical conversion, and immediately, out of obedience, adopts this conservative lifestyle:

1. No drinking, smoking, gambling, cussing, working on Sunday

2. Short haircut

3. Lose the earrings and piercings for men

4. Listen to Christian music only--no contemporary stuff, if really conservative

5. Adopt the politics of the group

6. Begin to distance oneself from "worldly friends and influences."

After a season of this, he starts to mature, reading his Bible for himself, and comes to realize that some of the church's understandings are incorrect or unnecessary. As he raises questions he is accused of being tempted by Satan and of being rebellious.

Eventually he finds himself gravitating towards a more balanced and moderate church. And, when asked about wasting time in that former, legalistic church he says, "Oh no. I needed the discipline and direction. God knew I was not prepared for making my own decisions in the beginning. Even though I now realize they were controlling and legalistic, it really helped me get started in my faith."

I don't know that every LDS needs to study Catholicism, but if I understood President Hinkley's admonition correctly, he wanted converts to bring the good from their backgrounds with them into the church. Personally, I see that why my church's style of service is very different from Catholic mass, our doctrine is probably 90% carryover. It would be foolish and silly for me to disregard the historical development. I even consider Jewish understandings when I study the Old Testament.

[Suzie]

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Holy Ghost leads the LDS member to the Baptist church to straighten him out before he gets himself in bigger trouble.

So are you saying that the same spirit that testified the veracity of the LDS Church (as the only True Church on the face of the Earth who posses the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ) could now (if a member runs into trouble) lead him away from it to another faith who doesn't posses the "full" truth (according to LDS beliefs)? Is that what you are saying?

[Javajot]

What way is that?

If an LDS tells you Jesus Christ is the one way to get back home he is right, but if a Baptist tells you Jesus Christ is the one way to get back home, he is wrong?

You can't guarantee anything. You do not know the heart of the someone you are referring to. An LDS member who cannot keep his covenants may be in a lot worse position than the Baptist who is steadily keeping the promises he made as a Baptist and progressing closer to God. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Holy Ghost leads the LDS member to the Baptist church to straighten him out before he gets himself in bigger trouble.

Is that how you rationalize sin and personal apostasy? The scriptures are clear on the matter.

[Blackmarch]

To know God's truth one needs to have revelation from God, to get that some may have to be in other churches first and search from there. others may require some sort of significant event in their life, others may be so in tune with the spirit that they may not need that research.

Everybody is different, what makes one person ready to recieve direction from the Holy spirit may not be the same as what the next person needs.

I know people who were lead by God from church to church, otherwise had God lead them straight to the LDS church they would not have had the strength to stay in it. I know others who recieved a witness the moment they came through the chapel doors, and that was enough for them to know it was true.

I think most lie somewhere inbetween, where we do have to put effort into researching (which usually does take one into early church/catholic history)

TO add- to know and understand about the apostacy I do not see how someone can avoid early church/catholic history to some extent.

[Backroads]

I'm with anatess. She seems to be focusing on a personal spiritual journey rather than whatever religious experiences, if I'm not mistaken.