Anti-Mormon Literature/web

[RMGuy]

Without a debate, I am just curious as to what constitututes anti-mormon literature or research to you personally. Since we are counseled to avoid anti-mormon literature, how do you categorize it?

If it is something that isn't writeen by a member that means Dickens or Tom Clancy are off limits...so membership or not doesn't seem the right criteria.

The same would hold true of publisher......we can't exclude something just because it isn't published by Deseret Books.

Is it anything that says something negative about the church or church leaders?

Or for you is it that you paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description (Anti-Mormon Literature); and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it..."

Curious.

-RM

[Guest]

To me, if it took some truth and twisted it to make us look/ sound bad, it's anti.

If it mocks or derides the leadership of the Church, it's anti.

If its purpose is to lead people away from the Church, it's anti.

I've read fair criticisms of Church policy or doctrine that didn't strike me as anti, just disagreeing.

[NeuroTypical]

Without a debate, I am just curious as to what constitututes anti-mormon literature or research to you personally.

I dislike the term anti-mormon. It's vague and usually used as an insult, or as a way to categorize someone into an easily dissmissable category. I prefer the term "church criticism". This phrase also makes it pretty darn easy to answer your question. Church criticism is criticism leveled at my faith or it's members. Church critics are people who produce said criticism.

Since we are counseled to avoid anti-mormon literature, how do you categorize it?

I've never been counseled to avoid it. In fact, I spent over a decade seeking it out, and interacting with critics wherever I found them. I attended a few "are Mormons Christian" classes thrown by our local megachurch while I was executive seceretary. The bishop asked me for a brief summary of what they were teaching once or twice.

I reached my peak on the Reachout Trust countercult message forums, when I got several of their big hitter posters to admit to the possibility that I might be a saved Christian.

In my opinion, you should first have a very firm grip on what you believe and why you believe it, before going out looking for arguments against it. If you believe something because "that's how you were raised" or you "just never thought about it before", then church criticism can be a huge testimony-damaging destructive force - because your testimony is based on heresay and tradition, instead of the reality and divinity of Jesus Christ.

[RMGuy]

There are both great replies. Thank you both. Please keep them coming.

-RM

[rameumptom]

Anything that is focused on trying to keep people from believing in LDS doctrine, particularly that focuses against LDS teachings rather than for their own, and will often twist things to make them seem ominous (Jesus and Satan are brothers), is anti-Mormon.

[Traveler]

Without a debate, I am just curious as to what constitututes anti-mormon literature or research to you personally. Since we are counseled to avoid anti-mormon literature, how do you categorize it?

If it is something that isn't writeen by a member that means Dickens or Tom Clancy are off limits...so membership or not doesn't seem the right criteria.

The same would hold true of publisher......we can't exclude something just because it isn't published by Deseret Books.

Is it anything that says something negative about the church or church leaders?

Or for you is it that you paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description (Anti-Mormon Literature); and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it..."

Curious.

-RM

This is so simple - I am surprised you even have to ask. Anti-Mormon as a person or literature is someone or something that insist on telling you what you believe when you already know darn well that what is being said or printed is not what you believe. In addition any effort to correct them ends in ridiculous arguments that you do not really know what you believe.

Thus if you were to say - "I am a fully active Mormon and that is not what I believe". They will only respond implying that you are uninformed about what you believe. Usually they quote from some obscure out of print document - as though some belief once held is always maintained - despite the 9th Article of Faith that clearly states otherwise.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

As a non-Mormon, I would define an Anti-Mormon as someone who treats you as prey, refuses to engage you on a personal level, and who raises his/her voice whenever they feel they do not have the upper hand in a conversation.

How would that work on the web? In literature? It would probably be easier to recommend sources that are respectful, than to list all those that are not. From non-LDS, some of the better books are:

How Wide the Divide (Robinson & Blomberg)

Bridging the Divide (Millet and Johnson)

The New Mormon Challenge

The first two are actually co-written by LDS and Evangelical thinkers. The last one is purely Evangelical, is critical of LDS teaching, but is respectful in tone. So, if you want to find out what Evangelicals do not like about your church, but want to feel respected in the process (rather than feeling yelled at), it's a good choice.

There are not so many efforts at respectful dialogue, so those interested in it will want to devour those few quality efforts that are out there.

Of course, you can always come to LDS.net and read my stuff. :-)

[zenbones]

When I was investigating, my LDS neighbor told me to not only look at the good but also see what others were saying about the Church that was negative. I did and I believe it made my faith even stronger. Instead of turning me away it brought me closer.

[Backroads]

For me, it's anything that takes facts (or even hearsay) and then has the nerve to insist on a single interpretation of it. "This <insert doctrine/history/etc> is bad because I say so."

I have no real complaint with those who bring up facts and events, even the less than stellar things. I believe that if you want your testimony to include a fuller knowledge of your church's nature, those are some questions you might want to consider.

But I don't consider it anti-Mormon unless the author is suggesting to me how I should interpret them [as negative].

[Blackmarch]

Without a debate, I am just curious as to what constitututes anti-mormon literature or research to you personally. Since we are counseled to avoid anti-mormon literature, how do you categorize it?

If it is something that isn't writeen by a member that means Dickens or Tom Clancy are off limits...so membership or not doesn't seem the right criteria.

The same would hold true of publisher......we can't exclude something just because it isn't published by Deseret Books.

Is it anything that says something negative about the church or church leaders?

Or for you is it that you paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description (Anti-Mormon Literature); and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it..."

Curious.

-RM

propaganda is a good indicator for me. its usually confirmed when i look up sources and 99% the time it turns out to be false, misintrpreted, and etc...

How sensible something is also a potential flag.

Another good indicator is when you are done reading it are you feeling anger or hate?

I'll also second PrisonChaplain's description that one is really good.

Personally i don't think were advised to avoid anti-literature because of the information, but rather because of the hatred and anger that results which both causes the spirit to leave, and usually turns someone into being seen as an enemy.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Blackmarch

[NadiaStar]

I suppose there is also the nature of why you are looking at it. The intent of the heart is a good indicator.

[RMGuy]

I suppose there is also the nature of why you are looking at it. The intent of the heart is a good indicator.

Interesting definition....

-RM

[embleau]

I offer a different perspective as a convert.

I grew up as a southern baptist. I was a "parrot LDS critic" in my high school years.

I read all the popular anti-LDS books and believed all the propaganda that the church was a cult yada yada yada.

Married young stupidly, had a daughter, divorced.

Married again at the age of 26 to a gal who was a southern baptist too. She ran multiple online ministries. One of them was a "Cult Outreach". We had two boys together.

In the course of our marriage, we had multiple sets of missionaries come to our home and visit with us. We invited them and met with them politely. I enjoyed meeting with them. They were always nice respectful kids. I respected what they were doing and i wish more people from my faith would do the same. My wife was like a pitbull, going for the jugular. Asking the supposed "unanswerable questions" to trip them up and prove them wrong. I listened and formed my own questions.

Our neighbors were also members of the church and he gave me a triple to read. Which i did over time with an open mind. We continued to meet with missionaries over the years.

I started form my own thoughts and feelings. I realized things about the church. My OWN thoughts. I allowed Heavenly Father to speak to me to what was truth, and he slowly reveled tidbits to me. But I had one block... My wife... So I shelved my feelings.

Then in early 2009, my wife lost it mentally, she had what she called a breakdown. She was in a unsatisfying job, among other issues and she snapped (I don't 100% believe it, but it's the past and i forgave) and had a emotional affair online with another man and then when i caught on, then moved to a full physical sexual affair with another man locally.

So kicked me out of the house when i tried to stop it and salvage our marriage. She completely lost it and filed for divorce claiming that she felt we can't repair it. (again i forgave her and we have friends today).

I was crushed and turned fully to our non-denominational church we were going to. our pastor was great and caring. the church seemed cold to me. colder than it ever felt. it puzzled me greatly. i didn't feel at home anymore there. I feel to my knees and prayed for guidance to where I needed to be.

In the weeks that followed, I worked towards getting my life together again. I ended up meeting a woman who was going through a divorce as well. we became friends quickly. She was a member of the church. We started talking about the church and my meetings with the missionaries and my feelings. It was a ah-ha moment. I prayed if this where God wanted me to be and I got my answer. I met with missionaries again and was baptized into the Church on Halloween 2009 of all days. My friend and i were married by our bishop in our meeting house May 1st 2010. We are working towards getting her unsealed from her Ex and us getting sealed in the temple now.

Now the point.... sorry...

My background and my prior knowledge, makes me a more effective ward missionary and home teacher because I know what the criticism is out there. I know that the antis are saying and how they twist the scriptures. I know how to untwist them in love and share my journey when it appropriate.

[Vort]

I offer a different perspective as a convert.

What an amazing story. Thank you for sharing it.

[Blackmarch]

wow thank you for sharing your experience.

[embleau]

wow.. i just reread my post. Sorry for all the typos and grammatical errors

Hopefully you all understood the spirit of the message :)

[JudoMinja]

Thank you embleau. That is an amazing experience and I am glad you shared it. I am also glad that it brought this thread to the surface during a time when I have reached a personal point in my life where I feel comfortable delving into the "anti-literature" sea. I want to understand their arguments, where they are coming from, and figure out how to answer those questions that can be answered.

I believe it is important for those who are not certain about their beliefs to avoid anti-materials. As others have stated, this is not because of the information but the way in which it is presented. It's all in the purpose. Something is anti if it is written/said/designed specifically to tear down someones faith. So if an individual doesn't understand their tactics or how to see through their blind-siding maneuvers, that individual is going to either wind up filled with doubts or assume everything the anti's say is correct, instead of doing their own research.

Now, like LM, I also prefer not automatically labelling things anti. I feel that title fits when something is written to aggressively target other's beliefs, be it anti-Mormon, anti-feminist, anti-American, etc. Putting "anti" in front of something suggests an effort to prove it wrong or tear it down. I don't think there is as much out there that is truly "anti" as there is simple misunderstandings, disagreements, or false assumptions. There is no point engaging in a debate with someone who is strongly anti anything, as there is nothing you will say or do that will sway their opinion- but I think it is important to examine the misinformations they present as such can confuse those who are seeking answers. Honestly curious people will notice the same things anti's use for attacks and want to know where the truth lies.

[embleau]

My Ex-wife, while we are pretty good friends today, still doesn't understand my conversion. In her mind she thinks I did it for my current wife. But I have MY testimony and I have shared that with her.

[Maureen]

wow.. i just reread my post. Sorry for all the typos and grammatical errors

Hopefully you all understood the spirit of the message :)

Welcome embleau! You don't have to stop at just being sorry for the typos, you can fix them with the very handy EDIT button that you can find at the bottom of your post. :)

M.

[skippy740]

To me, "anti" literature is spiritual pornography - twisting the good into something perceived to be sinister.

2 Timothy 1:7

7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

[pam]

Welcome embleau and thank you for your wonderful testimony and story.

Btw...don't worry about typos. If 100% accuracy in typing and spelling were a requirement, we would have no one on this site.

[SightByFaith]

Without a debate, I am just curious as to what constitututes anti-mormon literature or research to you personally. Since we are counseled to avoid anti-mormon literature, how do you categorize it?

If it is something that isn't writeen by a member that means Dickens or Tom Clancy are off limits...so membership or not doesn't seem the right criteria.

The same would hold true of publisher......we can't exclude something just because it isn't published by Deseret Books.

Is it anything that says something negative about the church or church leaders?

Or for you is it that you paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description (Anti-Mormon Literature); and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it..."

Curious.

-RM

If its spoken or written intent is to destroy faith, confidence or testimony in the Father, the Savior, the Holy Ghost, God's called and ordained prophets and apostles, or the Restored Gospel, it is anti-Mormon IMO. It all comes down to intent. So two people can say the same thing, and one I view as a differing opinion (informed or otherwise), while the other I view as anti-Mormon.

With this in mind, we LDS should be aware of ourselves when speaking to those of other faiths. If the intent (perceived or actual) of our "sharing the gospel" is to destroy their faith, confidence or testimony in those things they sincerely believe—as opposed to our intent being to engender faith, confidence and testimony in the Restored Gospel—we are going about it wrong. So yes, King Lamoni... that Great Spirit is God... (Alma 18:28)

[Yehshen]

I have something of a different take on anti-mormon literature. I spent the last 8 months investigating the church before converting last November. During this period, I deliberately sought out and read a lot of anti-mormon literature, and, on balance, it helped me make the decision to convert. At times, I was hoping the anti-mormon stuff would be convincing, but oh well.

I was shocked, one month into my membership, to hear in Relief Society a young twenty something woman say with real fear in her voice that her brother was reading anti-mormon literature and voice fear that his faith might be weakened. I chose not to say anything, but my reaction is, how can anyone say their faith is strong without reading the counter arguments?

To address the OP's question, there are different types of anti-mormon literature, including

a. Well meaning: such as warning folks the church doesn't define scripture as just the 2 books of the bible or the church is non-trinidarian (I think that's a word - but it's certainly mispelled). Yep - that's right.

b. to recruit folks away from the Mormon church - well, again, ok, as long as language isn't deceptive

c. to recruit folks away from the church using horrible lies or well designed deception - actually, this is the only stuff I truly consider anti-mormon, and this can be truly vicious. There is one site called something like what mormons truly believe, and it lists approximately 25 things that mormon believes, starting with accurate truths, becoming slightly incorrect, and morphing into hugh mischaracterizations.

d. sites dealing with historical accuracy = such as long diatribes on why horses should not be in the BOM. I'm glad I am aware of that point of view = but does it change my belief? No.

[SightByFaith]

I have something of a different take on anti-mormon literature. I spent the last 8 months investigating the church before converting last November. During this period, I deliberately sought out and read a lot of anti-mormon literature, and, on balance, it helped me make the decision to convert. At times, I was hoping the anti-mormon stuff would be convincing, but oh well.

I was shocked, one month into my membership, to hear in Relief Society a young twenty something woman say with real fear in her voice that her brother was reading anti-mormon literature and voice fear that his faith might be weakened. I chose not to say anything, but my reaction is, how can anyone say their faith is strong without reading the counter arguments?

To address the OP's question, there are different types of anti-mormon literature, including

a. Well meaning: such as warning folks the church doesn't define scripture as just the 2 books of the bible or the church is non-trinidarian (I think that's a word - but it's certainly mispelled). Yep - that's right.

b. to recruit folks away from the Mormon church - well, again, ok, as long as language isn't deceptive

c. to recruit folks away from the church using horrible lies or well designed deception - actually, this is the only stuff I truly consider anti-mormon, and this can be truly vicious. There is one site called something like what mormons truly believe, and it lists approximately 25 things that mormon believes, starting with accurate truths, becoming slightly incorrect, and morphing into hugh mischaracterizations.

d. sites dealing with historical accuracy = such as long diatribes on why horses should not be in the BOM. I'm glad I am aware of that point of view = but does it change my belief? No.

Thanks for sharing your experience. After reading about your conversion, I'd offer that the challenge is that not all people are the same. Some people have very sophisticated ways of processing and understanding information, while others process information in a very linear fashion. The spirits of some are gifted with great discernment. (D&C 46:23) Others very much rely on the testimony of others, (see D&C 46:14), including scriptural testimonies. And others still may be in a condition in which they are inappropriately blaming the Church or the Gospel for offenses against them (perceived or real) and are therefore vulnerable to anti-Mormon messages.

When a person whose testimony is weak—or whose natural faculties are more susceptible to manipulation—reads anti-Mormon material, seeds can be sown which may be very difficult to uproot. I've seen it happen. Their attention is diverted from their God-given faith to the shaky foundation of man's opinion. And while they may not be able to realize it, they may still make decisions based upon their newly-misguided views.

Others, like you, are able to discern more clearly. To them, anti-Mormon material may serve to strengthen their faith. I'm not sure which is the rule and which is the exception, but I always discourage people from reading what I understand to be anti-Mormon material. I think it's better to "lay hold upon every good gift, and touch not the evil gift, nor the unclean thing." (Moro. 10:30) But if and when we are exposed to it, or seek it for our own reasons, may we do so with caution and prayer!

[SanctitasDeo]

a. Well meaning: such as warning folks the church doesn't define scripture as just the 2 books of the bible or the church is non-trinidarian (I think that's a word - but it's certainly mispelled). Yep - that's right.

b. to recruit folks away from the Mormon church - well, again, ok, as long as language isn't deceptive

c. to recruit folks away from the church using horrible lies or well designed deception - actually, this is the only stuff I truly consider anti-mormon, and this can be truly vicious. There is one site called something like what mormons truly believe, and it lists approximately 25 things that mormon believes, starting with accurate truths, becoming slightly incorrect, and morphing into hugh mischaracterizations.

d. sites dealing with historical accuracy = such as long diatribes on why horses should not be in the BOM. I'm glad I am aware of that point of view = but does it change my belief? No.

I feel like that is not a bad take. I probably agree with your definition of anti-mormon literature.