Purpose of Anti-Mormon literature

[RipplecutBuddha]

I was perusing Amazon the other day to find books to load onto my new kindle. I was searching the LDS collections when I came across an anti-mromon book that had a fascinating review attatched to it. The last sentence reads;

This book is clearly to keep Protestant flocks from looking too far outside their own world, not for getting LDS Christians to move away from their faith.

This started me thinking, is there a chance we may have mis-interpreted the actual intent of Anti-Mormon authors? Are they all seeking to destroy the LDS religion, or are some of them instead seeking to bolster their own populations by painting a 'black sheep' as it were?

For instance, could this explain why so many cling to the 19th century claims that have been addressed repeatedly to this very day? Is it possible some aren't so interested in the actual debate so much as they are interested in highlighting the questions to illustrate a percieved 'danger'?

[Guest gopecon]

They may not all be seeking to destroy us, but it's the methods that they use (whatever the goal) that are so objectionable. I don't care if their primary concern is non-LDS Christians, rather than active Mormons, if they misrepresent or distort our actual teachings, willfully ignore evidence, and defame our leaders - then they are fairly classed as anti-Mormon.

I don't have a problem with someone making a positive case for their beliefs, or even contrasting their beliefs with another faith if it is done fairly and respectfully. There's a difference between a Baptist (for example) being pro-Baptist and anti-Mormon.

An important question is why the intense focus on Mormons. Why not go after Catholics with similar energy? Why do they ignore other protestant denominations with which they have significant doctrinal disagreements? I think that the reason they (the truly hateful anti's) focus so much on us is that we do have the truth, and the being who inspires their animosity knows it.

Edited September 16, 2011 by gopecon

[RipplecutBuddha]

Some of them do go after other non-protestant Christian faiths, such as Catholicism, Jehovah's Witness, etc.

It's these authors that I think fit into the mold I'm discussing. In those cases, I don't think it's so much the specific discussions they're interested in. All that's desired is to make their position stronger by assailing any dissenting views.

I also think the practice is disgusting, whatever the rationale or goal may be.

[prisonchaplain]

The classic anti-LDS literature that I saw growing up seemed to date from the 1960s-70s. Generally, the were not specific to Mormons, but were textbooks that examined "the cults." You got lumped in with Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, and sometimes Seventh-Day Adventism. Over time Christian Science, and some of the other small groups (remember the Moonies?) fell under the radar. Adventism crossed over from heresy to "acceptable, though different" for many. So today it seems that most of the "heresy hunting" is directed towards you and the Jehovah's Witnesses. You have a stronger presence on the internet, you advertise, and you have some major political players as members--so the opposition seems stronger.

As for anti-LDS literature, my guess is that they all hope to convert a few Mormons, and they surely do want to protect the evangelicals from being "seduced." Keep in mind that for evangelicals, the embrace of your theology would be apostasy, and the efforts are at least understandable.

So, why the constant drum beat about 19th century LDS teachings? Quite frankly, that would be a combination of intentional lying, tabloid theology (polygamy is a "fun" to read about), copy-cat research (authors simply repeating what other authors say), and your church had some fire-brand teachers and writers back then--who said some colorful stuff.

I continue to commend the much more thoughtful material coming out today, by some of our better-educated professors. Appealing to education is not popular here, but frankly, some of the worst evangelical writings about Mormonism are done, not be seminary-trained researchers, but by enterprising evangelists. For a great conversation between LDS and evangelical, "How Wide the Divide" (Blomberg and Robinson) is superb--even with it's 1997 publishing date. "The New Mormon Challenge" is an evangelical critique of your history and theology--but it is done respectfully, and with intelligence. FAIRLDS has done a critique of the critique, but did tip a hat to the work, for it's tone.

[z_o_n_e]

Sure, but it seems a lot also believe the end justify the means. A lot of exmormons are now atheists, and have given up on God entirely. Because, to be quite honest when you take their same tactics and apply it to any religion it has the same exact effect.

It is sad, that these same people that devote most of their time pushing people away from Jesus think they spreading the good word. Some of them even do it with knowledge that they are pushing some Mormons away from Christ. I once asked one such person on a forum a few years ago a question, that question being something along the terms of "Would you rather see me return to atheism, or remain Christian", to which his answer was along the lines of that I hadn't accepted the real Jesus so it did not matter.

Some of these people seem to only want to spread around hatred, and be free to ridicule others.. they claim they are anti mormonism and not anti mormon, but they way they speak shows they are lying. They like to go to areas where it is mostly Mormon, to mock and ridicule Mormons.. such as general conference.

If they were trying to save their own kind, then they should be able to do so without ridicule or misrepresenting facts.

[RMGuy]

First I think you would need to define what you mean by anti-mormon literature, as what falls into that definition may have a direct bearing on the intentions and purposes of the author. For example, there are numerous works that are not written or published by the church or church members. I wouldn't consider them anti.

Depending on your view point there are numerous works that present facts that may make the average member uncomfortable. I wouldn't consider them anti either.

There are even works that publish for the world aspects of the gospel that members hold sacred. Again, not neccesarily anti in my opinion.

When a work though begins to present untruths and does so deliberatly and intentionally for the purpose of destroying faith then I feel comfortbale labeling it as anti.

In my opinion there is much that gets labeled as anti, simply because it was not written by a church member and contradicts some cherished belief.

Just my $.02

-RM

[unixknight]

I think a lot of that stuff exists specifically to be a counterpoint to LDS missionary work.

"Hey how are you?"

"I'm ok... been thinking a lot."

"Really? About what?"

"Well a couple of those Mormons were over here yesterday, and they told me a lot of things that really made sense..."

"Oh don't listen to them, they preach blasphemy. Here, check out this book that tells all about it..."

So I guess that falls under the "protecting the flock" category but in a reactive way.

Edit: I actually thought of a bigger purpose: $$$

The more dramatic the criticisms, the more copies get sold. The more copies that get sold, the more checks get cashed. Why do you think the same sets of claims and accusations get repeated over and over? It's not to inform. Only one copy would be sufficient for that (even if the information were true as presented.)

Edited September 16, 2011 by unixknight

[yodabrooke]

I agree with you, I read a blog that had a real good point and a case so strong that I was thinking. That everything I knew was a lie, Joseph Smith was a lie, my feelings were a lie that the spirit that has spoke to my heart was a lie. I knew the spirit spoke to me but I was seeing with my eyes that it was a lie. How would I ever be able to trust that again? Well how could I believe in god now, how would I know? I can see why alot of Mormons would go atheists. If I wouldn't have studied and prayed for weeks and months I know I would have been Atheists. I found so many things they left out that it is just wrong to do that to people. But I have learned to look deeper into things and to trust the spirit but it was not an easy road. But also I can see that they don't understand the damage because they don't believe what we do and they don't know how powerful we feel the spirit, because in their minds we don't.

Sure, but it seems a lot also believe the end justify the means. A lot of exmormons are now atheists, and have given up on God entirely. Because, to be quite honest when you take their same tactics and apply it to any religion it has the same exact effect.

It is sad, that these same people that devote most of their time pushing people away from Jesus think they spreading the good word. Some of them even do it with knowledge that they are pushing some Mormons away from Christ. I once asked one such person on a forum a few years ago a question, that question being something along the terms of "Would you rather see me return to atheism, or remain Christian", to which his answer was along the lines of that I hadn't accepted the real Jesus so it did not matter.

Some of these people seem to only want to spread around hatred, and be free to ridicule others.. they claim they are anti mormonism and not anti mormon, but they way they speak shows they are lying. They like to go to areas where it is mostly Mormon, to mock and ridicule Mormons.. such as general conference.

If they were trying to save their own kind, then they should be able to do so without ridicule or misrepresenting facts.

[alexis]

I think one thing that sets the LDS apart is that unlike other religions, they don't actively scream "YOU"RE WRONG" at people. I go to Deseret, I read Ensign, there's always pro mormon stuff, never anti-otherreligions.

[RMGuy]

Alexis,

with all due respect I think that while we may not proclaim in official written publications that others are wrong and we're right, that it appears to many that this is EXACTLY what we do.

We understand it as trying to share with friends and neighbors the glorious truths of a restored gospel that contains a fulness of truth and builds on their existing believes.

They see it as sending door-to-door salesmen around to proclaim that they are wrong and we have it right.

We see it as a sincere question by a young boy prophet, who asks for an answer and recieves a personal visit from a loving Father who provides wonderful guidance and counsel

They see it as a claim by a young boy that what they have been taught and hold dear is wrong.

We see it as an invitation to come and commune with the saints, to participate in the ordinances of salvation, and enter into possible exhaltation.

They see it as asking them to forsake what they hold dear because we claim that we are right and they are wrong and unless they do things our way they are lost.

I'm not defending those that are seeking to destroy the church, but I think that ALOT of what many percieve as anti-mormon literature is not that at all. I find it a worrying when we as a group are always willing to claim the moral high ground (we didn't mean to offend, we only want to share, we allow others the priviledge of worship how and what they may) and can't understand when others view our actions as offensive. We clearly did not intend this as a personal attack on these other religions or groups. Yet, when these other groups write what they believe or attempt to share it with us, we see it as a personal attack and offensive. We can't have it both ways.

For what it is worth, that's how I see it.

-RM

[RipplecutBuddha]

The only thing that causes me concern about the material is that many approach questioning the LDS doctrines as though we never ask these questions of ourselves; as though we never examined the other (and varied) explanations of where the Book of Mormon came from.

I myself have no problem at all with someone who disagrees with what I believe. The vast majority of planet earth happens to hold the same opinion in general, so it's not a rare event. I think it's the disagreements, when held respectfully, that can spur us to deeper investigations of our faith and why we accept such unique beliefs. Rather what upsets me, or in most cases leaves me disappointed in the result of someone's hard work in generating a book, is when the tone of the effort is thoroughly condemning of us.

I think the reason for this could be attributed to what many Evangelicals see as the consequence of being a Mormon, as PC mentioned. Apostacy is not a good thing from any Christian perspective. However, the consequences of apostacy vary greatly between LDS and Evangelical ideas. When we discuss apostacy, the consequences result in a loss of glory and blessings. Yes we are damned, yet we can still be found in a place of happiness. It's a 'what could have been, what should have been' situation. For Evangelicals, when one discusses apostacy, the consequence is hell. It's hard to imagine a worse result. From that view, the strong language used makes some sense whether they're protecting their own, or seeking to bring us to their faith. After all, I don't think it would be right to want to see anyone in hell.

[Snow]

I was perusing Amazon the other day to find books to load onto my new kindle. I was searching the LDS collections when I came across an anti-mromon book that had a fascinating review attatched to it. The last sentence reads;

This book is clearly to keep Protestant flocks from looking too far outside their own world, not for getting LDS Christians to move away from their faith.

This started me thinking, is there a chance we may have mis-interpreted the actual intent of Anti-Mormon authors? Are they all seeking to destroy the LDS religion, or are some of them instead seeking to bolster their own populations by painting a 'black sheep' as it were?

For instance, could this explain why so many cling to the 19th century claims that have been addressed repeatedly to this very day? Is it possible some aren't so interested in the actual debate so much as they are interested in highlighting the questions to illustrate a percieved 'danger'?

The book you are talking about is, I think, The Ten Most Important Things You Can Say to a Mormon and the sentence you reference is simply from a review of a reader who thought the book was idiotic.

On the face of it, the author's intent is to educate evangelicals about The Church of Jesus Christ so that they are prepared to engage with Mormons intelligently and in a way will help Mormon to see their folly.

In reality, like with most anti-Mormon diatribes, that's all a bunch of malarky. It's called "boundary maintenance" and the primary intent is to make readers feel better about their own beliefs by dumping on the beliefs of others. The author and reader may not be fully aware of what their motivations and results are but this stuff is well known to physiologists and those who study such things.

You don't see Mormons, these days, write anti-evangelical books. Why? Besides having class, Mormons don't base their self worth off how they stack up to others. There are, however, many others in other faiths, who are immature in their faith and need to denigrate others to build up themselves.

[LeKook]

I think one thing that sets the LDS apart is that unlike other religions, they don't actively scream "YOU"RE WRONG" at people. I go to Deseret, I read Ensign, there's always pro mormon stuff, never anti-otherreligions.

I sometimes wonder if there's a difference between saying "YOU'RE WRONG!" and "I'M ALWAYS RIGHT!". LOL!!!

[prisonchaplain]

I wonder if, in a broad, general way religious critics in the Christian camp believe it acceptable to attack, condemn, and label those who call themselves Christians, but who fail whatever litmus test the author has? The phenomenon would be particularly true in Protestantism, where there is no central authority. Note that the worst offenders tend to be individuals, and you tend to get reactions from folks like myself like, "Yeah, that's off the charts. What was s/he thinking about?"

You will be hard pressed to find anything of these "Anti" works about any group, Christian or otherwise, coming from denominational publishing houses, and certainly not from their headquarters. In some ways your church and the Catholic Church might look at this and suggest that our doctrine of the priesthood of all believers allows for too many "loose canons."

I would suggest that religious firebrands can be found in most any system of church governance--though some are more subtle than others.

[Snow]

I wonder if, in a broad, general way religious critics in the Christian camp believe it acceptable to attack, condemn, and label those who call themselves Christians, but who fail whatever litmus test the author has? The phenomenon would be particularly true in Protestantism, where there is no central authority.

Protestantism is too broad - you generally don't see much such criticism from Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, half the Lutherans, etc.

[prisonchaplain]

Protestantism is too broad - you generally don't see much such criticism from Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, half the Lutherans, etc.

Ironically, you make my point about no central authority. You are correct though, evangelicalism and fundamentalism are the primary breeding grounds of Anti-LDS literature.

[Snow]

Ironically, you make my point about no central authority. You are correct though, evangelicalism and fundamentalism are the primary breeding grounds of Anti-LDS literature.

They're also equal opportunity haters. He also lambast Catholics, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Adventists, liberal Protestants and each other.

[rameumptom]

A couple years ago a DVD called Joseph Smith/Jesus Christ was mailed out to thousands of LDS homes. It told people they had to choose between Christ and Joseph Smith. It was clearly made with the proposition of destroying the Church and causing its members to question their testimonies. Its "scholarship" was very poor, but seemingly convincing enough to cause members without a strong foundation to fall from their faith.

[RMGuy]

A couple years ago a DVD called Joseph Smith/Jesus Christ was mailed out to thousands of LDS homes. It told people they had to choose between Christ and Joseph Smith. It was clearly made with the proposition of destroying the Church and causing its members to question their testimonies. Its "scholarship" was very poor, but seemingly convincing enough to cause members without a strong foundation to fall from their faith.

I might give you that as ANTI.

I have a harder issue when people want to include such authors as Palmer, Poll, Van Wagoner, Quinn, and Roberts in their categories.

There is a difference IMHO between honest inquiry and statment of facts than there is an intentional outset to destroy.

-RM

[rameumptom]

Might? Thanks for the slack!

I agree that people like Quinn and Palmer are not anti. They just have a different view point. They are not out to destroy, but are seeking to share their interpretation of history or teachings. Very different than one who intentionally misrepresents in order to destroy the faith of LDS, or scare those of other faiths regarding the LDS.

[Blackmarch]

I was perusing Amazon the other day to find books to load onto my new kindle. I was searching the LDS collections when I came across an anti-mromon book that had a fascinating review attatched to it. The last sentence reads;

This book is clearly to keep Protestant flocks from looking too far outside their own world, not for getting LDS Christians to move away from their faith.

This started me thinking, is there a chance we may have mis-interpreted the actual intent of Anti-Mormon authors? Are they all seeking to destroy the LDS religion, or are some of them instead seeking to bolster their own populations by painting a 'black sheep' as it were?

For instance, could this explain why so many cling to the 19th century claims that have been addressed repeatedly to this very day? Is it possible some aren't so interested in the actual debate so much as they are interested in highlighting the questions to illustrate a percieved 'danger'?

It is to instill doubt and/or fear of something (in this case Lds/mormondom)... it doesn't matter who the target is. Edited September 20, 2011 by Blackmarch

[cooling]

Yeah, I would say of all the "anti" literature out there only a small percentage of it is anything I would actually consider anti. I'm a huge fan of religious studies and own countless books on all the major (and a few of the minor) religions. For the past six months or so I've been studying the Mormon faith especially, and have collected quite a number of books on the subject. The only one that I would actually consider anti-Mormon is called, "What Do Mormons Really Believe" and it's written for the express purpose of informing the world that Mormons are crazy polytheists who aren't real Christians.

There are a lot of books that present a less savory history of the church than the official church version, but most of those books are properly researched and likely at least mostly true. I'd use "Under the Banner of Heaven" as a great example. Aside from being a fascinating and extremely well-written book, it is very well researched. It also paints a less than heroic image of the early Mormon church which upsets some members of the church. I say there's no reason why some ugly spots in your church's history should have any effect on your faith. I think that there would be a lot less problems if the church would be a little more up-front about mistakes made in the past. I can look at something like the Mountain Meadows Massacre and feel that it was sick and wrong, but also not have that one event change my opinion of the current Mormon church one bit. The reason people get upset and leave the church when they learn of these things is because they feel lied to, and they have every right to.

I have to say that I have read some amazingly beautiful wonderful things while researching the Mormon church, but one quote by a prophet was enough to convince me that this would never be the right religion for me. Elder Packer is quoted as saying, "Some things that are true are not very useful" in a speech regarding what is referred to by ex-members as "Lying for the lord." I say that all things are useful if they are true because the most useful and important thing is trust. How can I trust a church leader to tell me God's will for my life when I can't even trust him to be honest about church history? The blemishes on the church's history are so small compared to most churches in the world (see: Salem Witch Trials, Spanish Inquisition, protecting child molesting priests, etc), and I truly believe that the church would be in much better shape if the history were a little less sanitized. This is the internet age and anyone who wants to can find the information that's out there. Nothing in the history of the Mormon church holds a candle to the screw-ups of the Catholic church, so why not just stop with all the secrecy? It's not the fact that bad things happened that's making people leave. It's the fact that they find out on their own and then feel like they've been lied to and betrayed.

Sorry, I did not mean for that post to ramble so far off topic. As an outsider looking in at what is essentially a really beautiful faith, I get kind of worked up over the silly stuff that officials are willing to hide from members. Just to drift back onto topic here, I find that anti-mormon literature falls into one of these categories almost every time:

1. Ex-Mormons. Their "purpose" is generally to share what was probably a very difficult experience for them, and also to educate others about what they've learned. Sometimes their literature is decidedly anti and quite angry, but a lot of the time you'll find it's pretty light-hearted and not too harsh if you're able to laugh at yourself a little. Even the super angry ex-Mormons generally aren't anti-Mormon so much as anti-Mormon church though. They almost always have loved ones still in the church who they care for tremendously and whose faith they respect, but from the few accounts I've read they generally feel like they wasted a huge chunk of their lives feeling bad about stuff they shouldn't feel bad about and trying to live up to standards they never felt good enough for. They don't write to hurt you guys, but because they think they have found the truth and that you have the right to hear that truth as well.

2. A-hole Religious Leaders -- These books upset me to no end. I understand that everyone on earth who belongs to a church thinks that their church is the right one. If they didn't, they'd belong to a different church. What I hate is hearing someone purposely misrepresent beliefs and practices in order to hurt the credibility of another church and promote their own. I have read a few books by the big atheist authors (Dawkins, Hutchens, etc) and whether or not I agree with what they're saying I can look at their reasoning and at least respect it. They say that there is no God, and here's why it's foolish to believe in a higher power. With the authors like Ed Decker though I come across stuff where in one breath he's saying the Mormons are nuts for believing Joseph Smith could have possibly spoken to an angel, and then in the next breath he's praising Abraham for almost killing his son because God told him to. It's what I call "Selective Blinder Logic," which means that they're applying this harsh reasoning only to things they already don't agree with and then give a free pass to anything that's part of their own theology.

[Vort]

one quote by a prophet was enough to convince me that this would never be the right religion for me. Elder Packer is quoted as saying, "Some things that are true are not very useful" in a speech regarding what is referred to by ex-members as "Lying for the lord."

This is simply false. Elder Packer never suggested lying, either for the Lord or any other way. He stated an obvious (and useful) truth: Not all truths are useful. A parent trying to teach his young child the dangers of drug usage or casual sex would be a fool to tell the kid about how he used to smoke pot or sleep around. There is, perhaps, a time and a place for those things to come out, but there are also many times when such things are inappropriate.

Similarly, our seminary program is to teach our children to feel and be guided by the Spirit and to learn the rudiments of Church doctrine and history. Talking about an event 120 years ago where some Mormons slaughtered a wagon train, or for that matter talking about some excommunicated bishop's abuse of power, is generally not conducive to learning to be guided by the Spirit, and certainly has little to do with the rudiments of Church doctrine or history. There well may be a time and a place for such teachings, but seminary is not that time.

You are welcome to your opinions, but you ought not so blatantly misinterpret and misrepresent what Church leaders say as you have done with Brother Packer's statement.