what should "anti-Mormon" mean?

[prisonchaplain]

I used to be one who had learned about Mormonism by reading from an evangelical critic, and from an ex-LDS member turned evangelical minister. I would not consider either of the Anti, though I know if I mentioned the more well-known one's name, I'd get plenty of disagreement.

Personally, as a matter of integrity, I chose to learn about the religion from its practioners. The more I learn, and the more I intereact with LDS folk, the more I'm inclined towards relational, conversational interaction, rather than confrontation.

One good effect...during my chapel service yesterday, our LDS volunteer chose to sit in on most of it. Nothing said in that meeting caused me concern. The fellow felt welcomed, and commended me for the lsson.

The gospel will offend those who reject it. We, as his messengers, need not be offensive, nor intentionally provocative. Kudos to those who engage in interfaith efforts with love, and with a idea to share and learn. The others...kinda embarassing.

[clint25n]

...the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints still practices polygamy. That's in almost every anti-Mormon movie, book, pamphlet, etc, and simply is not true.

Hmm, I've seen some of those books and movies, but I have not seen anyone claim that the mainstream LDS Church practices Polygamy. What they do say is that polygamy is still a part of Mormon doctrine. Not that they practice it on Earth. There are those whom are sealed to more than one wife, due to either the death of a spouse, or other reasons. Eternal marriage is a big part of the Mormon faith, and polygamy plays a role in that aspect (after Earth).

I will say that Polygamy was permitted at times and forbidden at times in the Bible. But I'm not sure the matter of Polygamy on earth is lied about or even a concern to evangelicals. Unless of course you are FLDS.

[prisonchaplain]

Lies! It is a strong accusation. More often, these groups are highly critical of your church, and they explain their understandings of your faith in unflattering words and tones, and very much through the filter and lense of evangelical doctrine. There is little intent to be objective, or even nice.

You view these critics through LDS eyes, and they seem unfair, intentionally misleading...they seem like liars, and their products like lies. Perhaps the worst of them are. Most, however, are prosecutoral depictions of your faith. Perhaps, there is a similarity to the way FOX News would report on progressive politics, or the way MSNBC would report on conservative ones?

[Spartan117]

Hmm, I've seen some of those books and movies, but I have not seen anyone claim that the mainstream LDS Church practices Polygamy. What they do say is that polygamy is still a part of Mormon doctrine. Not that they practice it on Earth. There are those whom are sealed to more than one wife, due to either the death of a spouse, or other reasons. Eternal marriage is a big part of the Mormon faith, and polygamy plays a role in that aspect (after Earth).

I will say that Polygamy was permitted at times and forbidden at times in the Bible. But I'm not sure the matter of Polygamy on earth is lied about or even a concern to evangelicals. Unless of course you are FLDS.

Polly want a cracker?

[clint25n]

Hmm, interesting. I don't know why people would claim the LDS people practice polygamy on earth when their church forbid it over 100 years ago. In fact, if one were to practice it, they would be excommunicated from the LDS Church.

Those people whom claim that the LDS practice polygamy today would indeed be lying. I just haven't seen any in movies, books or youtube.

[clint25n]

Ok, answering these question would sum up a great deal for me.

1. Is it possible for a Christian to preach the gospel outside of a general conference and not be considered Anti-Mormon?

2. Is there a difference between Anti-Mormons and Anti-Mormonism?

[annewandering]

Ok, answering these question would sum up a great deal for me.

1. Is it possible for a Christian to preach the gospel outside of a general conference and not be considered Anti-Mormon?

2. Is there a difference between Anti-Mormons and Anti-Mormonism?

1. Why would you do that? It is pretty much a rude thing to do when people are attending a church meeting. You wouldnt like anyone to do that to you would you? If you think we need to be taught something at least do it in a polite way, time and place.

2. The idea that there is a difference is an intriguing idea. While it is probably true, most people are not going to see a difference especially if you are preaching anti-Mormonism at them.

[prisonchaplain]

Ok, answering these question would sum up a great deal for me.

2. Is there a difference between Anti-Mormons and Anti-Mormonism?

You may find some answers by going through this string: http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/40022-anti-mormonism-misunderstood.html

[prisonchaplain]

1. Why would you do that? It is pretty much a rude thing to do when people are attending a church meeting. You wouldnt like anyone to do that to you would you? If you think we need to be taught something at least do it in a polite way, time and place.

It's definitely confrontational. If I were at a District or General Council with my fellowship (Assemblies of God), and there were picketers with signs like, "Your tongues are demonic!" I would probably overlook the loving correction they were trying to offer.

On the other hand, there is another religion that has been accused of not protecting their children. Ex-members, most of whom have been victims of their policy (so they say), often will set up a small demonstration outside of the stadiums where this group holds their conventions. They do not use bullhorns, nor do the speak loudly atop platforms.

What they are doing is confrontational...perhaps rude. Not having walked in those shoes, I'd have a hard time telling them to knock it off, though.

I do give LDS credit for their high tolerance towards their theological opponents.

[Vort]

Ok, answering these question would sum up a great deal for me.

1. Is it possible for a Christian to preach the gospel outside of a general conference and not be considered Anti-Mormon?

What do you mean? Christians preach the gospel at General Conference, both outside the building and inside. And not just Christians, but Christians called and ordained as prophets, seers, and revelators. Preaching the gospel is never bad, unless you are casting your pearls before swine.

Oh, wait. Do you mean the so-called "Christians" who delight in telling Latter-day Saint adults and children that they're going to hell? Yes, that's anti-Mormon.

2. Is there a difference between Anti-Mormons and Anti-Mormonism?

Yes. One is a plural that refers to human beings, while the other is a singular that refers to the hatred preached by those of the former type.

[Spartan117]

It's definitely confrontational. If I were at a District or General Council with my fellowship (Assemblies of God), and there were picketers with signs like, "Your tongues are demonic!" I would probably overlook the loving correction they were trying to offer.

This last May I attended my first general conference, and sure enough, the protesters were outside the conference center with their signs yelling (or "preaching" as they were calling it) at everyone who walked by. Right next to the group of protesters was a family of 5, a couple and their 3 teenage daughters, who were lined up giving away free hugs. They had signs too, but theirs had hearts and smiles instead of messages about satan and hell. We stopped and partook of their service and chatted briefly with them. They were Evangelical Christians who were more offended by the protesters than any Mormon walking by. They even apologized to us. As if they had anything to do with the people who were disgracing themselves.

[Mamas_Girl]

1. Is it possible for a Christian to preach the gospel outside of a general conference and not be considered Anti-Mormon?

Yes. We do it all the time. touché

Oh, you mean other Christian churches. I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as they keep it low keyed, and respectful to the LDS Church. I don't care if other religions want to set up booths or what have you and share their religion, and not degrade ours, obviously not on Temple Square itself, but off site.

2. Is there a difference between Anti-Mormons and Anti-Mormonism?

IMHO, no. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that makes me a Mormon. I believe in the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in other words I believe in "Mormonism." So one's being anti-Mormonism, is disliking who I am and what I stand for, therefore I find it to be anti-Mormon. Other's mileage may vary.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Mamas_Girl
seperate two words

[bytebear]

I think anti-Mormons do a lot more harm to their own cause than they realize. Other than the obvious hate spewed by the street preachers which turns away pretty much everyone, the lies and distortions that have been preached for decades is coming back to bite them. As the church becomes better known in areas like the Bible belt, a lot of people who have heard all these evil things about Mormons are realizing they just aren't true. Even that preacher who called Mormons a "cult" had to clarify that he didn't mean it like Jim Jones or David Koresh. But the fact is, that is the message he wanted to convey, but he was caught in his lie because too many people know Mormons aren't like real cults. So he has to backtrack on his message. This is true of just about every talking point of the anti-Mormon from "Jesus and Satan are brother" to "Mormons worship Joseph Smith." Too many people know too much for the lies to be effective. And as people who grew up learning those lies become aware of the truth, they see who the real deceivers and manipulators are. I have seen a big shift in the past decade from the outright lie like "Mormons don't believe in Jesus" change to "Mormons believe Jesus was just a prophet" to "Mormons believe in a different Jesus" and even now they are narrowing the definition to be a very specific definition of Trinitarianism, something they never had to do when people didn't know anything about Mormons. Back then, "Mormons don't believe in Jesus" was enough, but now people know better, and the lie doesn't work.

Edited November 1, 2011 by bytebear

[clint25n]

This is true of just about every talking point of the anti-Mormon from "Jesus and Satan are brother" to "Mormons worship Joseph Smith."

You don't believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?

[bytebear]

You don't believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?

Not in the context that it is presented by people like you.

I was engaged by a street preacher just last week, and he brought that up as the reason he rejected the Book of Mormon. Of course I corrected him in that the Book of Mormon says nothing of Satan and Jesus being brothers. I then corrected him in the correct LDS belief that all intelligent beings are "sons of God" and that it's the Bible that says it. So really there are several lies intertwined in that accusation. 1) that unique LDS scriptures like the Book of Mormon have "weird teachings" 2) Mormons don't believe the Bible even though most "unique" doctrines of Mormonism are well defined in the Bible 3) singling out Satan and Jesus and neglecting to present the concept that all are "sons of God" and 4) ignoring the plentiful Biblical proof that attests to that fact.

Again, once people understand the true LDS position, they see such statements as deceitful, ignorant at best, and those presenting it look the fool. Certainly I thought that street preacher was well indoctrinated in deception, and completely ignorant of Mormonism.

It's ironic that you used the exact technique that some have described as anti-Mormon in earlier posts.

Edited November 1, 2011 by bytebear

[clint25n]

I guess I'm not sure what you mean. And I read your response twice and still not sure whether you believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers?? And people like me? What do you mean. You made a statement which I was surprised to read, and I asked you about it.

I'm not attacking you, was just surprised you do not believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers. That's all, really.

Edited November 1, 2011 by clint25n

[Mamas_Girl]

You view these critics through LDS eyes, and they seem unfair, intentionally misleading...they seem like liars, and their products like lies.

There is a review of "the movie" in the National Conference of Christians and Jews newsletter March-April 1984, in which they actually state that the movie is based on half-truths, erroneous interpretation, etc. They actually were trying to convince the "Concerned Christian" group who was going to show the movie, not to do such. They drew the following conclusion about the movie.

We find particularly offensive the emphasis in the film that Mormonism is some sort of subversive plot - a danger to the community, a threat to the institution of marriage, and is destructive to the mental health of teenagers. All of our experience with our Mormon neighbors provides eloquent regutation of these charges.

We are of the opinion that [the movie] relies heavily on appeals to fear prejudice and other less worthy human emotions... It appears to be a basically unfair and untruthful presentation of what Mormons really believe and practice.

Personally, I find little difference between the term "lie" and "untruthful." The NCCJ even finds the movie to be more than just a "critic" of the LDS beliefs.

[Mamas_Girl]

Hmm, I've seen some of those books and movies, but I have not seen anyone claim that the mainstream LDS Church practices Polygamy.

It doesn't matter what they claim, it's how they present their information. I'd call this intentional misleading.

From Wikipedia, concerning the movie.

A man identified only as “Art, Polygamist, Mormon Fundamentalist Prophet and Leader” is interviewed as he stands in front of the LDS Church Office Building in Salt Lake City.[2]

If you follow the number 2 you'll get the point.

The juxtaposition infers a relationship between the building and the individual, and the film doesn't clarify that there is no direct connection between the two.

This is what I'd call intentional deception. Some people don't realize that the fundamentalists and LDS Church are two completely seperate entities. The movie isn't about the fundamentalists anyway, so why interview one on the topic of polygamy outside the Church office building? Presuming he's who he says he is, in the first place.

[prisonchaplain]

There is a review of "the movie" in the National Conference of Christians and Jews newsletter March-April 1984, in which they actually state that the movie is based on half-truths, erroneous interpretation, etc. They actually were trying to convince the "Concerned Christian" group who was going to show the movie, not to do such. They drew the following conclusion about the movie.

Personally, I find little difference between the term "lie" and "untruthful." The NCCJ even finds the movie to be more than just a "critic" of the LDS beliefs.

I know the movie you refer to. There was a second one that came out. Interesting, though still clearly biased. It play-acted an evangelical couple showing the movie to an angry LDS couple--purported neighbors. The gist of the movie was to walk through various clips, and have the evangelicals ask questions that elicited responses that justified the film's depictions.

What I come away with now (more than 20 years after having last seen it) is that the producers honestly believed they were presented LDS doctrines--though granted, in the worst light possible. They were convinced your beliefs were very wrong, and so used expose style, and yes, some tabloid dramatic effects. Nevertheless, they thought what they were presented was accurate--so it seemed to me.

I won't defend the film, or the producers much. Rather, I'd suggest it does little good to condemn most critics as "liars." It might be more useful to see the confrontational ones as opponents, or enemies. The difference is you can know with certainty when someone is against your faith. You can usually quickly discern when they will not listen to you, and have no interest in conversation. You cannot, with certainty, tell when someone is intentionally lying about you.

When these folks do as you mentioned in another post, and intentionally present the FLDS-type folks as mainstream LDS, then I would agree with you, they deserve the children's condemnation, "Liar liar, pants on fire!!!" :-)

Edited November 1, 2011 by prisonchaplain

[estradling75]

Do understand that negative experiences tend to have more impact then just basics or nice ones.

If we have one really negative experience with a group and have 20 civilized ones... Its the negative one that carries more weight and has the greater impact. It take a lot more nice ones to balance it out.

This is the lens that Mormons view anti-Mormon acts and other churches. It doesn't matter if they intended to lie, it only matters that they did.

Of course this does work in both directions... It only take one Mormon being a jerk to sour a lot of people of other faiths against us as well.

[Mamas_Girl]

I agree that there are many critics who aren't liars, or even anti-Mormon[ism]. They just believe differently and we all live in peace and harmony.

However, I do believe that there is such a thing as a lie by omission. Whether he/she truly believes it or knowingly makes an accusation it is still a lie. Growing up in a Christian home (Methodist) I was always taught there is no grey area.

I won't defend the film, or the producers much.

A good example of getting caught in a lie of omission is back to the movie. The producers interviewed a Dr. Charles Crane, who they introduced as "author, college professor, expert on Mormon archaeology." When I first heard that I thought they meant that he was an author and professor of Mormon anthropology (archeology), but NO... why didn't they mention in his credentials that he's a Doctor of Ministry? Not that there's anything wrong with being a D.Min, but the implication is that he's a doctor of archeology. To me, that's a lie of omission, leading others to think he is an author, college professor of archeology, and therefore an expert on what he's about to say.

[prisonchaplain]

To be honest, if his D.Min studies included a heavy focus on LDS studies, I think you may be straining at gnats. Then again, I wonder where he is a prof. Usually, professors need a Ph.D. (the teaching degree). D.Mins are more common for experienced ministers/chaplains etc. who are "in the field" rather than academia.

[Mamas_Girl]

To be honest, if his D.Min studies included a heavy focus on LDS studies, I think you may be straining at gnats. Then again, I wonder where he is a prof. Usually, professors need a Ph.D. (the teaching degree). D.Mins are more common for experienced ministers/chaplains etc. who are "in the field" rather than academia.

Now I think the omission that he was a Doctor of Ministries is huge, because initially I though the guy was LDS, and an archeologist studying in central America. But now I've come to learn that he's not only not LDS, but he's also written many books that are unflattering to the church. That does put a whole different spin on things.

Also whoever was responsible for the caption giving a person's credentials they claimed that he was an "expert in Mormon archeology." When the truth of the matter is that he claims he was "shocked" when he saw that on the movie screen, and that he "never claimed to be an expert Mormon archeologist," adding that one cannot be an expert in something that is "non-existant."

If it's true that he was shocked when he saw that caption, and if it's true that he never claimed to be an expert in Mormon archeology, then I'd say that there's at least a half-truth going on here and most likely the fault lies with the movie people, and not him. His response in his letter is not an attack on the movie as much as it's in defense from an attack made by a few LDS members who apparently slandered his name. For what it's worth, I find it absolutely horrible that any Church members will stoop to the same level as those who attack the Church. I do not excuse them in their actions. Here is his letter in it's entirety. Letter from Dr. Crane

Edited November 1, 2011 by Mamas_Girl

[prisonchaplain]

Girl...I scanned the letter...YOU WIN. It's not often easy to tell when someone is intentionally lying, but when they are called out, and persist, the error becomes intentional.