My first interaction with an actual anti-Mormon

[Echo2002]

The Southern Baptists are the worst. One of the largest Baptist churches in Memphis supposedly had one of the largest anti-Mormon libraries in the area. The missionaries were told not to wear their badges if they ever got invited to visit the large church. While I lived there I was told several times I was going to hell for being Mormon.

[Suzie]

Exactly what we did at my job. Ex-Mo who was constantly pulling people aside who are LDS to show them the "error of their ways." Enough people complained and he's gone.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why people cannot separate WORKPLACE from RELIGION. Geez. When I go to work, I go to WORK, if I want to discuss RELIGION I go to Church or home, NOT MY JOB!

[Suzie]

The Southern Baptists are the worst.

Well....let's not bash other Churches.

[prisonchaplain]

I think Spring meant that Southern Baptists are the most Anti-Mormon. If so, that might still seem like a bit of a slam. However, the true Antis would likely wear it as a badge of honor. Gotta love ironies.

[mordorbund]

If this is not God's religion, then please PLEASE PLEASE show me my error and point me in the right direction!!

But for your consideration: An army of monkeys flinging feces at me will not convince me to join their ranks. I guess it's the old saying about catching flies with honey not vinegar.

Joseph Smith said after the First Vision he was

persecuted by those who ought to have been my friends and to have treated me kindly, and if they supposed me to be deluded to have endeavored in a proper and affectionate manner to have reclaimed me.

I did come across an Anti how-to that preached this principle, and the author won a lot of my respect by doing so.

[Guest mormonmusic]

This is a long thread, and I read the first two pages....JudoMinja -- there is no definition of a Christian that I think the world will agree with. For me, I think a Christian is someone who believes he lived, and tries to follow his teachings. They also believe He is divine and that He made salvation possible, and that we should follow His example. That's good enough for me.

Now, they can do things that make me never want to be their kind of Christian, or that convince me they don't really believe the criteria above. For example, Jim Jones acted in ways that controlled people and killed them all in the end -- that has me questioning if he truly believed in the example of Christ. But ultimately, if someone says they believe in Christ, that He is their Savior, and try to live his teachings, then I will not challenge them on being a Christian. They may disagree on whether he has a body, whether He is separate or one from the father, and whether he travelled to America etcetera...but if they say they identify with the Christian faith, then they are Christians in my view.

I usually end these discussions by letting the person know they invented the "Mormons aren't Christians" routine to marginalize us. To make us look less mainstream. They have a myriad of reasons -- from hallowing the Bible as a source that even binds God from speaking formally in scripture to us today, and thus, rejecting the BoM, to being put-out our missionary force takes many of their members from them, to simply deciding our beliefs are too different from mainstream Christianity.

Personally, I think they are bigoted in this respect, as ultimately, truth is a slippery thing, and I believe many people have had sincere, conflicting experiences about what is truth.

Like others, I invest little time in these anti-Mormon discussions, and if I do so in front of other people, the goal is to behave as Christ would.

[bytebear]

These are great points all. Probably a more useful discussion is what is heresy? Such a line would bring a whole lot more discussion, but would avoid any ultimate condemnations.

Consider this, how much heresy does it take to put one's salvation at risk? The answer might well be "Any amount." Okay, now we can discuss the doctrine of the day. On the other hand, if I say, "Your heresies are too grievious--you cannot possibly be a real Christian!" Well...the discussion is pretty much over, isn't it?

Thank you...this is a great approach.

The problem with throwing out heresies is that it's a moving target. The heresies of today are not the same as yesterday. Catholics called all protestants heretics. When various protestant churches split they called each other heresies. At one time, if you believed the Earth revolved around the Sun you were a heretic, which pretty much make no one today a Christian.

[ontherighttrack]

I do not want to deride this string, but I'm left begging this question...do any of you believe it is even possible for some soul to believe they are Christian and yet not qualify, due to grossly false doctrine, or illicit behavior? If so, and you had a relationship with them, would you prayerfully intervene by gently confronting them?

This thread has been the most interesting and worthwhile I have found on this website. So thank you for the discussion.

In response to your question Prisonchaplain (recognising that this is my opinion)... for me I would say that the answer is "yes". I think we do have a responsibility to share the "good news" with each other and to learn the doctrines of salvation. Yet, I think one does not have to take on the "Pharisee" approach to do it. My Dad taught me that I can be right and still be wrong if the spirit in which I communicate it is wrong. I believe that those are good words of wisdom. The intent should be to bring others closer to Christ.

I have Muslim friends, Jehovah Witness friends, Catholic friends, Hindu friends, Methodist friends, athiest friends and many other friends from different denominations. I share many similar views with each of them even if some differ. I have no problems with any of my friends (or those who I don't even know) sharing their beliefs with me and I with them but the spirit in which it is done is not to "attack" the other but rather done in "love" and a mutual respect for each other. Muslims get a lot of anti, Jews get a lot of anti, Mormons get a lot of anti, Scientology gets a lot of anti, etc. I find that this goes beyond sharing differing points of doctrine - it is done in a spirit of contention, bigotry, and oft-times ignorance. The person does not teach in "love" but rather in "pride". One can only truly be converted to Christ through the Spirit - not through reasoning or force.

As for the definition of Christian? Well "Christ" is in the name Christian so I would say that a belief of Christ as their Savior must be present. But I think Christian would go a step further by saying that they follow the teachings of Christ. In and out of the church you may have people who believe in Christ but not follow His teachings so I guess that doesn't make one very Christian. Do I consider Mormons Christian? Absolutely. Do I consider Jehovah Witnesses Christian? Absolutely. Do I believe RLDS are Christian. Absolutely. All deserve the title of Christian.....if they follow the teachings of Christ and have the heart of Christ. If we have the heart of Christ then I guess we all work to keep the commandments and seek after truth and righteousness. I am okay if people want to proselyte to me about their religion or to share love and concern for me about "errors" they think I am making (though I have a strong testimony of the things I do know to be true). But there is no need to make a mission out of "bashing" anyone's religion even if they think the doctrines are wrong. Convert people - not through condemnation - but through bringing them closer to Christ.

I have never been able to understand how intolerant and disrespectful people are for people who practice beliefs or doctrine that are dissimilar to theirs. It stuns me. The media does it all the time. It seems and feels very bigotted and ignorant. You don't save souls by tearing them down...but by lifting them up....since the gospel is essentially "the good news" and not "the bad news".

Edited July 24, 2011 by ontherighttrack

[Echo2002]

Well....let's not bash other Churches.

I wasn't bashing any church. I get more "your going to hell" or "I'll pray for you" comments from Baptists. I'm sure they are not all like that, but a lot of them are.

[Guest mysticmorini]

I think you could group Baptists and conservative evangelicals together. Thats just their "style" the most vocal Anti's are far from Jesus's example anyway so I just smile and ignore or perhaps if they tell me I am going to hell I will say "I'll let Christ be the judge of that"

[spamlds]

The replies on this thread have been interesting to read. At the Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism, we track anti-Mormon activity, particularly in the media. There was a concerning spike of anti-Mormonism that led to multiple incidents of vandalism on LDS meetinghouses and several instances of assaults against missionaries and members. You can see the whole incident log here:

The Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism: Incident Reports

The Church has had an elevated profile since 2007 primarily due to Mitt Romney's candidacy for the presidency and Proposition 8. Evangelical Christians who believe books like "The Godmakers" are in a panic because of Mitt's, and now Huntsman's, candidacy. They have been told that Mormons want to take over the government and force a nuclear theocracy. Of course, we know such things are crazy talk, but there are a lot of evanglicals who believe this about us. As the election cycle goes forward, there will be an increasing amount of anti-Mormon stuff in the mainstream media. If Romney actually gets the GOP nomination, the opposition will have an anti-Mormon heyday, financed by about a billion dollars worth of campaign money.

We all are going to have to answer a lot of questions in the next year that have been drafted by anti-Mormons. It is not going to be easy. Our faith is going to be tested. Elder Packer told the saints in a broadcast to saints in the Utah Valley:

"Easy times are in the past," he said. "Humbly confess to the Lord that you will do things His way. The days of the Hole in the Rock were easy times compared to what faces you." (Meridian Magazine, 22 Sep 2010, Meridian Magazine - Rock-Ribbed Faith - Meridian Magazine - LDS, Mormon and Latter-day Saint News and Views)

Next year, Warner Brothers will be producing a movie based on the book "Under the Banners of Heaven," which will show the Church in a not-so-favorable light. It will be directed by Ron Howard (the DaVinci Code) and the screenplay will be written by a gay exMormon--all just in time for the election.

Our lives may be somewhat complicated as a result of this increased visibility for the Church. The time is now to have a testimony based in the Holy Ghost, not in the reasoning of men. If we don't have that, it will be difficult to stand. Anti-Mormonism is about to take a big leap forward, the likes of which we haven't seen since the 19th century.

[prisonchaplain]

The problem with throwing out heresies is that it's a moving target. The heresies of today are not the same as yesterday. Catholics called all protestants heretics. When various protestant churches split they called each other heresies. At one time, if you believed the Earth revolved around the Sun you were a heretic, which pretty much make no one today a Christian.

A heresy is a false, or wrong, teaching. Despite what is said above I doubt that you wish to forsake the discernment of sound doctrine. Most of the LDS Gospel section of this site, and many other assorted string are a discussion of what is true vs. not true teaching.

Additionally, a single heresy does not necessarily remove "Christian" from a believer. My point is that discussing heresy rather than "who is a Christian" keeps the focus on the all important topic of doctrine, rather than moving us to a discussion of judging souls.

[Suzie]

I wasn't bashing any church. I get more "your going to hell" or "I'll pray for you" comments from Baptists. I'm sure they are not all like that, but a lot of them are.

I know you probably meant that but you made a generalization, just like other people do about "Mormons" all the time just because they happen to meet a few jerks.

[bytebear]

A heresy is a false, or wrong, teaching. Despite what is said above I doubt that you wish to forsake the discernment of sound doctrine. Most of the LDS Gospel section of this site, and many other assorted string are a discussion of what is true vs. not true teaching.

Additionally, a single heresy does not necessarily remove "Christian" from a believer. My point is that discussing heresy rather than "who is a Christian" keeps the focus on the all important topic of doctrine, rather than moving us to a discussion of judging souls.

I guess my point is what was considered true can change and what "the Church" condemns as heresy can change. There are examples in the Bible, examples in Catholicism, in Christian denominations, and even in LDS teachings. So, what changes doctrine? What makes a heresy acceptable doctrine? From my understanding of history, it's popularity and cultural normatives. Mormons are heretics because they are the minority, not because their doctrines are without Biblical merit.

[prisonchaplain]

Bytebear...and so we discuss. "Hey, your view is rejected by other churches. We think it's heresy." You: Okay, so here's what the Bible says about it. On the other hand, how can you support your tradition from Scripture?

Now you're having a fruitful discussion.

Over time we do discover that some doctrines were actually just widely held cultural traditions. 50 years ago, we didn't allow dancing, makeup, jewelry, or women to wear pants in our churches. Today we realize that scripture calls for modesty, but how that gets applied is usually cultural.

Other teachings have remained for much longer. But, so long as the discussion is about doctrine and Scripture, it can be fruitful. You may even find, over time, that your theological nemesis learns to respect your thoughtfulness. It's harder to condemn people you respect.

[imcurious]

Next year, Warner Brothers will be producing a movie based on the book "Under the Banners of Heaven," which will show the Church in a not-so-favorable light. It will be directed by Ron Howard (the DaVinci Code) and the screenplay will be written by a gay exMormon--all just in time for the election.

I think all believers in Christ can weep about this

[imcurious]

I guess my point is what was considered true can change and what "the Church" condemns as heresy can change. There are examples in the Bible, examples in Catholicism, in Christian denominations, and even in LDS teachings. So, what changes doctrine? What makes a heresy acceptable doctrine? From my understanding of history, it's popularity and cultural normatives. Mormons are heretics because they are the minority, not because their doctrines are without Biblical merit.

This is the overall problem. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, so there has to be an actual truth and we all (believers in a resurrected Christ) should be pursuing that truth and not listening to the popular or cultural garbage that gets in the way.

[bytebear]

Bytebear...and so we discuss. "Hey, your view is rejected by other churches. We think it's heresy." You: Okay, so here's what the Bible says about it. On the other hand, how can you support your tradition from Scripture?

Now you're having a fruitful discussion.

Over time we do discover that some doctrines were actually just widely held cultural traditions. 50 years ago, we didn't allow dancing, makeup, jewelry, or women to wear pants in our churches. Today we realize that scripture calls for modesty, but how that gets applied is usually cultural.

Other teachings have remained for much longer. But, so long as the discussion is about doctrine and Scripture, it can be fruitful. You may even find, over time, that your theological nemesis learns to respect your thoughtfulness. It's harder to condemn people you respect.

I really think that is the key. It's not enough to simply reject a concept you consider heretical. You need to dig deeper and understand why the belief exists. For example, for LDS to understand the trinity, they need to understand more than the superficial understanding. Similarly, the idea that "Jesus and Satan are brothers" is such a corruption of LDS belief. And if one asks for a thorough explanation, you will come away with Biblical verses and interpretations that explain the concept.

In short, you may not agree with the doctrine, but you should understand why it is believed.

[Guest Sachi001]

I wasn't bashing any church. I get more "your going to hell" or "I'll pray for you" comments from Baptists. I'm sure they are not all like that, but a lot of them are.

Yeah I grew up in the southern bible belt. Baptist pretty much bash every religion. Including their own. as in Northern vs Southern Baptist. So next time you get that going to hell. Ask them about Northern Baptist are going to hell too.

[FunkyTown]

I really think that is the key. It's not enough to simply reject a concept you consider heretical. You need to dig deeper and understand why the belief exists. For example, for LDS to understand the trinity, they need to understand more than the superficial understanding. Similarly, the idea that "Jesus and Satan are brothers" is such a corruption of LDS belief. And if one asks for a thorough explanation, you will come away with Biblical verses and interpretations that explain the concept.

In short, you may not agree with the doctrine, but you should understand why it is believed.

Unless you're rejecting the Nicolaitans. They were wrong. Really wrong. Heretical, even.

Stupid Nicolaitans, with their... Nicolaitan ways. Doing all sorts of things that Nicolaitans approve of.

They were heretics, for sure.

[JudoMinja]

This is the overall problem. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, so there has to be an actual truth and we all (believers in a resurrected Christ) should be pursuing that truth and not listening to the popular or cultural garbage that gets in the way.

That is a great point, and I think that is the reason we end up with "antis". People adhere to what they believe is the "actual truth" and then feel like it is their duty to tear apart all the "lies" and "falsehoods" of other beliefs. The problem is that 1. they are not in any way being loving or understanding of those who believe differently so that these people will want to understand them back and accept the "truth" and 2. they are pridefully assuming that they are correct and everyone who thinks differently is wrong.

I think we all get caught up in this mindset to some extent. Afterall, why would we adhere to any belief system if we did not believe it was the correct one? Unless you are just a non-committal wanderer and cannot make up your mind what to believe, you most certainly will think that your beliefs are the correct ones and everyone else is wrong. So there needs to be a recognition of our own humanity and the possibility for making mistakes. We need to alter our perspective so that instead of saying "this IS the truth and you are all wrong"- we can say "I THINK that this is most likely to be the truth and this is why. I may be wrong, but since this seems the most correct to me it is what I will adhere to."

If we can build in ourselves that attitude then we can be more open-minded and understanding with one another and discuss both the similarities and differences of our beliefs. Settings like this are great for that, because I think we get a collection of such open-minded people. There most certainly is an "actual" or "universal" truth, and I think we are all striving to find it. The more we can collaborate and communicate openly with one another, the more likely we will be to find that truth.

Edited July 26, 2011 by JudoMinja

[prisonchaplain]

Unless you're rejecting the Nicolaitans. They were wrong. Really wrong. Heretical, even.

Stupid Nicolaitans, with their... Nicolaitan ways. Doing all sorts of things that Nicolaitans approve of.

They were heretics, for sure.

This is actually a powerful point. The Nicolaitans were heretics of the worst order. There comes a time when one must say, "Thus sayeth the Lord, repent, turn from your wicked ways, or destruction awaits."

Then again, the Nicolaitans were not the LDS/evangelicals on the other side of the street. They were right inside our church/ward! Furthermore, the living prophet of that day roundly condemned them, saying he had received his word directly from Jesus.

A possible conclusion then is that any condemning that needs to be done should be "in-house." When it comes to outsiders, Paul's approach of convicted, contextualized gospel appeal is more appropriate.

[JudoMinja]

A possible conclusion then is that any condemning that needs to be done should be "in-house."

I like this, and there is actually a good example of it in the BoM too! When Amalekiah started causing problems WITHIN the people, forming a group of "kingmen" that disagreed with the rulership of the judges, Captain Moroni took it upon himself to weed these kingmen out. He saw a threat to the liberty of his people and wanted to assure that those within the ranks of the Nephites would be supportive of that liberty and not destroy it from within.

This is some great advice for each of us- we need to pinpoint the problems within ourselves, our homes, etc. and proactively "attack" instead of just letting those problems build, fester, and grow in strength. When dealing with a problem from without though, "attacking" is very wrong and very dangerous. Instead, we should be building a strong defense and preparing ourselves to meet the attacks that will come our way by maintaining our own spiritual strength.

[imcurious]

2. they are pridefully assuming that they are correct and everyone who thinks differently is wrong.

You are absolutely right that pride is the problem, but not in that they assume they are right, we all do that. Their pride is that they think they are right and are unwilling to continue learning and studying. No individual is 100% right about everything (other than perhaps Christ, but he himself confessed he only acted as the Father directed him to act). So we should all be willing to acknowledge and accept, without exception, that while we are right in some areas we are not right in others.

I think the same could be said of denominations within the church. While one denomination is right regarding one doctrine, another denomination is right regarding another. I don't think it is a question of if each group is right about some things and wrong about others. It is a question of which things are we right about and what are we wrong about.

[FunkyTown]

This is actually a powerful point. The Nicolaitans were heretics of the worst order. There comes a time when one must say, "Thus sayeth the Lord, repent, turn from your wicked ways, or destruction awaits."

Then again, the Nicolaitans were not the LDS/evangelicals on the other side of the street. They were right inside our church/ward! Furthermore, the living prophet of that day roundly condemned them, saying he had received his word directly from Jesus.

A possible conclusion then is that any condemning that needs to be done should be "in-house." When it comes to outsiders, Paul's approach of convicted, contextualized gospel appeal is more appropriate.

What's funny is that, when I posted it, it was more support for the idea that we must confront heresy when we find it, with an acknowledgement that we don't necessarily know what mistakes we make that God will simply correct and which are willful heresies.

The fact that God hated the Nicolaitans is indisputable. They were heretics. What's interesting, however, is that we have no idea who the Nicolaitans were. We have guesswork based upon the etymology of their name, but we have no way of knowing what sort of heresies were so great that God said "Yes, you have made mistakes, but you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I'm counting as good for you."

I wish I knew who the Nicolaitans were. To know how far is 'Too far' would be great where it comes to spotting heresy. Unfortunately, we don't know. That may have been part of the point, too - If we don't have an exact line in the sand, the safest thing is to stay as far away from it as possible.