The Affect of Anti-Mormon Propaganda

[jlf9999]

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

[slamjet]

None, because I don't bother to waste my time to read it.

[NeuroTypical]

Quite a bit. I spent about a decade seeking out criticisms of my faith, and I came out the other side with a much more thorough understanding of what the gospel was and was not, what the truth claims of the church are and aren't, and what I believe and why I believe it. My faith in the reality and divinity of Jesus Christ, and the truthfulness of the restored gospel has increased a lot. My faith in humanity's ability to screw up a free lunch hasn't really increased or decreased, since I already believed that going in.

Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.

Austin Farrer, "The Christian Apologist," in Light on C. S. Lewis , ed. Jocelyn Gibb (New York: Harcourt and Brace, 1965), 26.

LM

Edited April 22, 2011 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[jlf9999]

Quite a bit. I spent about a decade seeking out criticisms of my faith, and I came out the other side with a much more thorough understanding of what the gospel was and was not, what the truth claims of the church are and aren't, and what I believe and why I believe it. My faith in the reality and divinity of Jesus Christ, and the truthfulness of the restored gospel has increased a lot. My faith in humanity's ability to screw up a free lunch hasn't really increased or decreased, since I already believed that going in.

LM

I agree. Discussion with others who think differently forces me to decide what I believe and why. I learn when I have to look it up. I think I learned more defending my faith than I ever did in college taking religion classes. It also gives me a sense of who is serious about religion and who is a propagandist. Until recently I always had a low regard for Evangelicals because of the mean-spirited approach most have towards us. In fact, I stopped blogging because I was so burned out on them. My readers it seemed were all bent on converting this heathen Mormon to the true gospel and bashing Joseph Smith than trying to understand what we we actually teach. But I have discovered not all of them are toads. There are others who are fine folks with a different view of what the gospel says. So maybe I owe the "toads" something after all.

Edited April 22, 2011 by jlf9999

[Blackmarch]

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

I generally dont get involved with the more blatant stuff... The sneakier stuff tends to make me look up things.

99.9% of the time its taken out of context, misused and abused, or tenth hand sources, or hypersensationalised.

The trap that is hidden with these things that you really have to worry about is hate and anger. This will turn a stranger from a brother to an enemy, which is generally much more difficult to love. As well as driving the spirit away, which allows doubt and fear to enter.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Blackmarch

[Jennarator]

Disscussion can be useful, but only when the intent is to honestly seek out information.

When people come to a place to discuss, and they come only to argue, or they come prepared with thier arrows pointed and thier minds closed it is usless.

[prisonchaplain]

True confessions time. In my early years (teens) I read a lot of anti-Witness material. I grew up with friends associated with that movement, and so wanted to know how to witness to them. I have probably read at least a half dozen critics of that movement (book-length). Well, some of those who criticize the JWs also criticize your church. So, I read Walter Martin's works. You garnered a chapter in his seminal work on the c-word (s).

Flash forward about 20 years, and there was a big controversy in evangelical Christianity about televangelism. The money, the "prosperity gospel," and the showy pentecostalism. A few of the traditional counter-c-word "ministries" turned their guns on these folks. Hank Hannegraff (Martin's successor) was one of them.

In the midst of this, one fellow spoke out against this. He wrote a book called Heresy Hunters, and reprimanded Hanegraff and others for "friendly fire." His message? "I used to be a Mormon...these televangelists don't worship like I do. But they are Christian brothers. Leave them alone."

So...agreeing with his book about the televangelists, I read his book about his own conversion. His turning point was the Temple. He did not divulge any rituals. However, he did say he was disturbed by the experience (it was before the major changes that are said to have taken place around 1991). At the counsel of his bishop, he went every day for over a week, trying to work his way through his discomfort. He could not overcome it, and began a quest to find out why. In short, he ended up leaving the church, and becoming an evangelical. His tone is calm, but since he encourages witnessing to Mormons, I suppose it's "Anti."

So, how has all this effected me? If nothing else, Martin did convince me that it would take a very high level of persuasion to convince me to abandon the Trinity (that and salvation by grace alone were his primary measures). The other fellow (would have to look up his name) actually encouraged me to, above all us, treat everyone with respect, and to be very cautious about casting aspertions or judgments.

Everything effects us, but I am convinced that those who hunger and thirst after righteousness will find it, irregardless of propaganda.

[Dravin]

I was raised in the church, so I'm probably not the type you are looking for an answer from. That said, it kind increases it in a round about way. Quite a lot of anti material is ridiculously constructed, while there is probably well put together stuff out there a lot of the stuff you run into is of the Catholics eat babies variety which has an effect of diminishing all anti material, even the stuff that is reasonably constructed. The end result is the Church stands a little higher from the obvious mud slinging.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Dravin

[jlf9999]

True confessions time. In my early years (teens) I read a lot of anti-Witness material. I grew up with friends associated with that movement, and so wanted to know how to witness to them. I have probably read at least a half dozen critics of that movement (book-length). Well, some of those who criticize the JWs also criticize your church. So, I read ....

Chaplain

Your temple comment is interesting since many people who attend for the first time find the whole experience less than spectacular. I did too. Over time however, I have concluded it had more to do with me than the program. Certainly baptisms and sealing ceremonies are much different than the endowment.

[jlf9999]

I was raised in the church, so I'm probably not the type you are looking for an answer from. That said, it kind increases it in a round about way. Quite a lot of anti material is ridiculously constructed, while there is probably well put together stuff out there a lot of the stuff you run into is of the Catholics eat babies variety which has an affect of diminishing all anti material, even the stuff that is reasonably constructed. The end result is the Church stands a little higher from the obvious mud slinging.

One thing that I found is for those people who never get past The God Makers type stuff likely will believe anything - as long as it gives them something or someone to hate. The thought provoking writers are a different breed. Those who know their stuff make me wonder what I believe and cause me to stop a bit. Now that kind of person I find valuable and worth listening to. I could learn stuff from some of them.

[NeuroTypical]

In my experience, some folks stubbornly cling to their inexact grasp on what they believe, without really understanding even why they believe it. These folks are at high risk of being harmed by critical material. For example, some folks have grown up with the notion that you must always obey our church leaders because they are better than you and always right. When these people run headlong into a fact that says otherwise (like a stake president being convicted of solicitation of a minor, or some such thing), then the only way to reconcile the facts with their stubbornly-clung-to belief, is to dump the whole set of beliefs. This can be incredibly painful and scary, so to fill the hole, often the person will cast about and find some other inexact belief to stubbornly cling to.

Other folks can take a step back in a case like that and come to grips with the new understanding that no, church doctrine does NOT say that people in authority are always right, but it does say they're entitled to inspiration but retain their agency to act for good or ill, and the natural man is an enemy to God, and we exist in a fallen and sinful state, etc. Those folks come out the other side of the issue having grown a bit, with a deeper understanding of what the truth claims of the church actually are.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[jlf9999]

In my experience, some folks stubbornly cling to their inexact grasp on what they believe, without really understanding even why they believe it. These folks are at high risk of being harmed by critical material. For example, some folks have grown up with the notion that you must always obey our church leaders because they are better than you and always right. When these people run headlong into a fact that says otherwise (like a stake president being convicted of solicitation of a minor, or some such thing), then the only way to reconcile the facts with their stubbornly-clung-to belief, is to dump the whole set of beliefs. This can be incredibly painful and scary, so to fill the hole, often the person will cast about and find some other inexact belief to stubbornly cling to.

Other folks can take a step back in a case like that and come to grips with the new understanding that no, church doctrine does NOT say that people in authority are always right, but it does say they're entitled to inspiration but retain their agency to act for good or ill, and the natural man is an enemy to God, and we exist in a fallen and sinful state, etc. Those folks come out the other side of the issue having grown a bit, with a deeper understanding of what the truth claims of the church actually are.

As a case manager in a previous life, I can tell you there are many erstwhile strong LDS people who spent some serious time before the judge. About 20% of my caseload in fact.

[Suzie]

There is a lot of anti-Mormon propaganda out there from material being quoted out of context, from the belief Mormons belong to the lizard alien group to what a lot of members consider anti-Mormon material but it's not, which are controversial LDS issues that I will say your average member who doesn't have an interest in church history or access to the internet knows much about. I think the differentiation is important.

[daplautz]

Last year I began reading a ton of anti so I could take the attacks that people make on the church and learn how to counter it if anybody ever came up to me in person and wanted to rebuke me for being a Mormon. It started off well, but after a while the doubts started creeping up on me and I began questioning everything that the LDS Church teaches, including the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus. I had to go through quite a bit of 'rehabilitation' by studying scriptures, praying, and listening to talks from General Conferences. Long story short, anti only exists to alienate non-members and to make members question their beliefs to the point where they being to stop believing. Let me be clear when I say that ALL anti is deception; it uses false assumptions, half-truths, and skew the beliefs that we hold to be true. There is nothing in any type of anti-Witness literature that shows characteristics of Christ.

[jlf9999]

Last year I began reading a ton of anti so I could take the attacks that people make on the church and learn how to counter it if anybody ever came up to me in person and wanted to rebuke me for being a Mormon. It started off well, but after a while the doubts started creeping up on me and I began questioning everything that the LDS Church teaches, including the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus. I had to go through quite a bit of 'rehabilitation' by studying scriptures, praying, and listening to talks from General Conferences. Long story short, anti only exists to alienate non-members and to make members question their beliefs to the point where they being to stop believing. Let me be clear when I say that ALL anti is deception; it uses false assumptions, half-truths, and skew the beliefs that we hold to be true. There is nothing in any type of anti-Witness literature that shows characteristics of Christ.

I appreciate what you are saying however I am not sure every one of the folks who approach is a hate-filled bigot. If I may suggest, what gets us into trouble is personalizing what these folks say. When we get defensive we loose our perspective. Afterwards we may become remorseful and doubt. You may find it easier to handle this stuff if you look at it as an opportunity rather than an attack. The opportunity is to discover in yourself what you really truly believe and go about proving it. You could be wrong you know. Maybe what one or two of these people has to say strikes an honest chord. Remember, you don't have to have an answer for every question. It is OK to say you don't know. One more caveat - never trust them to know more about our religion that we do. They never do. Never.

[slamjet]

Faith in Christ is so fragile. Why would anyone want to jeopardize it by filling it with that stuff that only breeds contention, which is not of Christ? If it's not uplifting why get involved in it? I don't understand the pull nor the necessity and how anyone would put themselves at risk from having a spirit of joy and faith to contention and doubt? I lived in a very dark evil world. I am very acquainted with the workings of the advisary and how quickly a life can change towards him and away from Christ. It may sound cliche, but it's so true that you don't need to do crack to know it's bad for you. Anti-Mormon literature is just that.

To justify the reading of it so that you can know what the other side is about, or to be able to contend with the other side is already breading a spirit of contention and darkness. If you read all throughout the Book of Mormon, those who rose up to fight against the Church. They were brought down by speaking of Gospel truth, not by trying to understand their message and giving it any credence. Christ himself didn't go out to see what his advisories were promoting about him. He taught from a place of strength and truth. Nowhere is it written where he contended with them on what their perspective was. He tried to teach the the perspective of the Gospel and left it up to them to follow him or not.

Justification is like a huge chunk of rotting beef, with a pink bow on it.

There is nothing honest or praiseworthy in anti-Mormon literature. There is no need to see if it has anything honest in it. It is pointless to look at the Church from their perspective. All you will be doing is dragging yourself down, possibly to destruction. Rather, read and strengthen your faith and testimony of the Gospel. You cannot find exaltation in any other way. Leave the anti-stuff to the anti's and those who will give it any credit. Learn, teach and speak from true gospel principles and leave it at that. It is our job to share, not contend. It is their job to convert by seeking the truth through God.

[daplautz]

I appreciate what you are saying however I am not sure every one of the folks who approach is a hate-filled bigot. If I may suggest, what gets us into trouble is personalizing what these folks say. When we get defensive we loose our perspective. Afterwards we may become remorseful and doubt. You may find it easier to handle this stuff if you look at it as an opportunity rather than an attack. The opportunity is to discover in yourself what you really truly believe and go about proving it. You could be wrong you know. Maybe what one or two of these people has to say strikes an honest chord. Remember, you don't have to have an answer for every question. It is OK to say you don't know. One more caveat - never trust them to know more about our religion that we do. They never do. Never.

I began reading anti as an opportunity, but it wasn't easy keeping a sense of impartiality to the stories that told such deceits. I agree that I lost my perspective, but that is only because I'm not cut out to handle this stuff. It isn't because of a frail testimony, it is because most anti uses the lack of knowledge that investigators have and scares them. I don't think that anybody should actively go out and read it. I was wrong to say that all anti uses deception. I was out of place. I was under the impression, though, that anti suggests animosity.

[jlf9999]

I began reading anti as an opportunity, but it wasn't easy keeping a sense of impartiality to the stories that told such deceits. I agree that I lost my perspective, but that is only because I'm not cut out to handle this stuff. It isn't because of a frail testimony, it is because most anti uses the lack of knowledge that investigators have and scares them. I don't think that anybody should actively go out and read it. I was wrong to say that all anti uses deception. I was out of place. I was under the impression, though, that anti suggests animosity.

Not always. Anti doesn't always mean antagonistic in the sense of mean-spirited bigots. Take the church's position on homosexual marriage. Many well meaning members have a different take on how the church ought to treat homosexuals who want to stay in the church. I wonder if that isn't why the brethren further refined the official approach to membership. They still allow homosexuals to be active and even hold a temple recommend as long as they remain abstinent, do not promote that lifestyle or speak out against the church.

I think you can see how others on this board talk about and treat us even though in their own churches they may speak in opposition to our practices and theology. Compare that to the trash-talking street preachers on Temple Square. Merely having a different opinion isn't an evil thing. Some of the finest people I know are folks who have strong feelings about our church but in every other way are as fine a Christian as one would like to have as a friend or neighbor. My mother's mother comes to mind. That does not mean you should engage the low-life dragging a Book of Mormon across the side walk by a string however. And I would stay away from the websites that pretend to know all about Mormons. They don't and they are often ex-communicated former members with a grudge. Spending your time there is like stealing from God. You are wasting that precious resource that you are.

Edited April 23, 2011 by jlf9999

[Obolus]

If your faith is in people, it will fall one way or another because people are fallible and will eventually let you down. If your faith is in Christ and his true principles, you will never be let down.

Too many individuals have their faith placed on Church leaders and/or family members. When these individuals attempt to tackle anti-mormon material, they are ill-equipped because they have such individuals as Brigham Young placed upon a pedestal. All anti-mormon propaganda always attacks prominent Mormons because Christ and his principles are unassailable. To approach that material, your faith must be correctly placed.

However, you must realize that learning how to combat that material will transform you, and not likely in a way that you'd want. I have found that it is much more worthwhile to develop faith and the relationship with Christ that the Gospel encourages than to jump into the yard filled with angry dogs. Christ is not found in that arena.

[Backroads]

I, like many, have had my doubts and issues. I think it's when I'm feeling insecure in my testimony that little anti things get to me. But then, later, when I'm feeling stronger, I look at those same things and think "so?"

I think a big part of what makes something anti-mormon is the attitude in which it's presented. There are so many things presented against Mormons that are in fact true. Yet instead of treating these things simply as facts, they're presented as things that must be bad! The presenters pull out the drama and next thing you know some little thing has enough bells and whistles on it that it must be bad. Someone didn't know about it: It must be bad. I don't personally agree with it: It must be bad.

I think the culture of the Church has changed over the years. People pull out old Church books, wonder why such-n-such isn't mentioned as much, and come to the conclusion that there is some big cover-up. It's all very conspiracy theory panic in attitude, and it's just... weird. If it didn't bother your grandparents, why does it bother you?

And then there is so much generalizing. People LOVE to generalize. They assume one little thing is the rule for everyone.

I think, generally, the anti propoganda just annoys me. I will admit that so much of it is true, but I just don't see why all these things are necessarily bad. The early Saints didn't mind it much of what happened in the history.

[volgadon]

And then there is so much generalizing. People LOVE to generalize. They assume one little thing is the rule for everyone.

This actually is pretty funny.

[selek]

I appreciate what you are saying however I am not sure every one of the folks who approach is a hate-filled bigot.

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.

[Vida]

Happy Belated Easter to you all,

My good friend and I had a few weeks of poking fire on Catholicism and Mormonism to the point where I told her of my sorrow on how our friendship was falling apart.

After spending some time researching online about how the Catholics and Mormons had said, I found the book to be the soothing offer. I am reading it so that I could understand my Catholic friend's perspective better. It is called Catholic Roots Mormon Harvest: A story of Conversion and 40 Comparative Doctrines by Eric Shuster, whose conversion from being Catholic to Latter-Day Saint of Jesus Christ was made more than 20 years ago. According to the author's comments, "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." This author's wife's goal was to become a nun, but it was changed during the investigation.

For my Easter greeting to my good friend, I gave her the summary on The Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Chapter 8). If you are in the same situation as mine, I would recommend this book. Its description by Mark McConkie, Professor, University of Colorado, is "written in a sincere and gentle style, filled with friendly humor, .... "

[pam]

I've read bits and pieces of Eric Shusters "The Biblical Roots of Mormonism." I'll add the book you just mentioned to my list which of course I will never get through. :)

[Vida]

My good friend's reply this morning: I have not buy the book, yet. What you did is very good, in my bible doesn't have Alma. I will try to find the book. Thank you. This is positive for the first time in many weeks!! :-) I encouraged her to read BOM chapters/verses on lds.org just like I am reading hers online, too.