Anti-Mormon Schtuff

[Quin]

One of the things I did when I was investigating was trawl through as much anti-Mormon literature as I was easily able to.

It's something I do with most things (both new & familiar)... Find out what the detractors have to say about "it", look at their sources, their arguments, etc.

Without exception, the anti-stuff was all pretty comforting as it fell into one of a few categories

- Stuff that happens in ANY group (religious, political, school, neighborhood, etc.)... Like bad experiences with an individual or small gout within the larger group, but the larger group was fantastic. Or money management. Or politics. Or, or, or. Essentially: people being people doing people things. The same things one will find at work, in the PTA, in book club, sports teams, families, whatever. Anywhere people interact with each other. Okay. No worries. There are people in the church. I think I can deal. Especially as this isn't a small church, so there are lots of social dynamics to choose from. I like the norm, the abnormal is just that, and there are going to be lots of personalities that will not always get on with each other. Check.

- Moot History. Aka things that happened 100+ years that Dont happen now. Interesting, but doesn't bug me. Women can vote, slavery is illegal, all-volunteer-military, etc are all things (secularly) that were true 100+ years ago, but are true now. In my mind, these things are mostly GOOD things. Things to be PROUD of joining (or belonging to) a group which has changed for

- The religious bit (this actually cracks me up, like in stitches laughing). Because the LDS church is a religion. Yet a rather high number of complaints are surrounding religious concepts. Like that the Church has them. Ummmmm.... Okay?

- probably some others, but those are the ones coming to mind.

So 2 things give me real pause surrounding the anti-Mormon-schtuff.

1) Why so many people are shocked or have their faith shaken by this kind of muckraking?

2) Why we are so often counseled (bishopric, mission, sunday school, etc.) to avoid looking at the anti-schtuff, instead of being taught to break it down scientifically / read critically (my bias, i was raised in a science-family, and am a scientist/teacher by trade), or logically.

I can see that it's probably fear of #1 that leads to #2... But...???

I know my own process, and my own methods... So I may be missing something, here.

Do most of all y'all here just not look, or do what I do, or do something totally different?

Is the counsel not to look the party line, or just my locale?

For born & raised folk... We're you taught to read critically (aka scientifically) in the security of home, or did the church used to teach it, or???

For converts, did you have the same "Yikes! Don't do THAT!" Reaction from missionaries and teachers I did?

I'm just baffled by the repeating theme of people learning moot history, or having a personality conflict that could happen anywhere, and completely losing faith. It feels like there's a disconnect somewhere (possibly in my brain B) oy)... Something obvious being missed. Not that this happens at all... But it happens so frequently.

Thoughts?

Q

[Vort]

We are taught not to look at anti-Mormon crap because its purpose is to destroy the Spirit, and it often works quite well. I don't remember being shaken because of looking at anti-Mormon garbage, since as you say it's mostly quite easily refuted; but I also don't remember ever reading it and feeling the Spirit strongly with me. It is vile -- spiritual pornography.

[estradling75]

1) Why so many people are shocked or have their faith shaken by this kind of muckraking?

2) Why we are so often counseled (bishopric, mission, sunday school, etc.) to avoid looking at the anti-schtuff, instead of being taught to break it down scientifically / read critically (my bias, i was raised in a science-family, and am a scientist/teacher by trade), or logically.

Q

Because the leaders of the Church understand the status of its warriors... To many are the Foolish virgins standing in borrowed light of the Wise virgins. To many have failed to follow the instruction to put on the whole Armor of God.

Good leaders know you don't send in someone ill-equipped and ill-prepared to fight. Wise leaders avoid a fight if they at all can. So the church is busy focused on preparing its warriors for battle. To get the members to put on the whole Armor of God, to give those that are foolish opportunities to become wise.

Clearly anything that is new to a person can be a surprise... However the shock and shaken faith really sets in when a person suddenly understands that they are in battle for their very souls and that the sword of the spirit is unfamiliar in their hands, their shield of faith is but a dust spec, and that their breastplate of righteousness doesn't fit them very well.

What kind of leader would send someone out in that condition?

[Guest]

A lot of times, people just need that one excuse to quit the faith without feeling guilty about it. Anti-mormon things gives them that excuse.

So, a lot of times, when you see somebody who gets shocked and leaves the faith, it is because they're struggling with their covenants and just need something so they can live without having to worry about feeling guilty for broken covenants.

And a lot of these the person doesn't even know they are doing...

[Bini]

I have never read the stuff. Not intentionally anyway. I've stumbled upon it from time to time pulling online searches but it's pretty easy to tell right off the bat what the author is getting at with just the first sentence or so. I don't waste my time. I personally know that my spirit is fragile, my knowledge in the Church is limited, I don't want to get into something that will only deter me from what my overall goal is.

[MarginOfError]

I don't believe we do a good job of teaching people (as a church or as a society) how to critically evaluate belief systems and opposing ideas. There seems to be very little interest in the general public of understanding how people who disagree come to their conclusions. It's a lot easier to tell people "don't read the opposing view points and don't worry about it."

This creates a big problem with anti-mormon schtuff because those who write it either a) don't know how the LDS Church comes to its conclusions and so beat their heads against the wall to refute it, or b) do understand how the LDS Church comes to its conclusions and selectively present information in a way to make its members uncomfortable with the Church (essentially, preying on the widespread inability to critically evaluate claims).

It's easier, and less risky, to teach members of a group obedience and dogma than it is to teach them to evaluate the information being presented all the way back to its base assumptions. That's true of a lot of organizations, not just the Church.

And I try not to hold it against people who choose not to critically evaluate either their or others' beliefs (I'm not great at this, but I try). The process isn't interesting to a lot of people. What bothers me more is that people who do read and evaluate it are considered on the fringes.

[Guest]

I have to say, I'm a little insulted at the insinuation that because I was raised in the Church and taught that reading lies would do worse than nothing for me, I must not have been taught to read and think critically.

[Lakumi]

to me, and I was told this as a kid, if I read something that shakes my faith then I never had faith to begin with.

I often claim that saying as my own now.

[Backroads]

I suppose I could look at it critically. And though I don't make a point of looking up the anti-shtuff, I try to look at it both critically and spiritually when I do stumble across it. I'm not against the concept of going over it critically and intelligently and I rather wish people would do so when they and shtuff meet.

Yes, I was raised not to look at it. I recall having times in my life where I thought the instruction was too simplistic and even thought "What are they trying to hide?" or "Don't they trust us to look at it intelligently?"

But now I think the instruction is very wise and the answers to my questions are "Nothing, really" and "Trust and intelligence are neither here nor there".

The reasons for the instruction are beneficial. I don't care how booksmart and critical you are going in, the purpose of anti-schtuff is to attack your spirit. If you want to look critically at history, pull out some nice, fair, history-based sources. One will have much more success studying simple facts than attacking an argument based more on twists and emotions than information.

For your other question.... I consider myself intelligent and studious. Fact is, many of the books that contain so much "dark and horrible facts" were simply old Church books lying about my house and my grandmother's before they were twisted in further publications by antis. I grew up reading history without the nasty bias. So I suppose I was taught in my own home and schooling years to be somewhat critical, but I think that's besides the point.

[Bini]

I can see how MOE's points might rub people the wrong way but I get them.

What separates a blog with skeptical views from a blog with Mormon hate? I think that can be difficult for a lot of people to tell apart, especially, when you love the gospel and live by it. Anything different from that can be threatening. I also think that it's a wise guideline to stay clear of anything that doesn't invite the spirit, and I don't think that's limited to anti-Mormon material, that encompasses all kinds of things that we all sometimes find ourselves drawn to.

[Finrock]

Good Morning Bini. I hope you've been well! :)

What separates a blog with skeptical views from a blog with Mormon hate? I think that can be difficult for a lot of people to tell apart, especially, when you love the gospel and live by it. Anything different from that can be threatening.

The more I live and love the gospel of Jesus Christ, the less threatening opposing views become because I become more certain in who and what I am.

-Finrock

[Guest]

What bothers me more is that people who do read and evaluate it are considered on the fringes.

No, the people who read it and evaluate it and decide that twisted truth holds more wisdom than the Lord's anointed, and then go around with the attitude that the Church leadership is either blatantly misleading the fellowship or just tired, outdated, ignorant old codgers. . . those are the people I consider to be on the fringes.

[Quin]

I have to say, I'm a little insulted at the insinuation that because I was raised in the Church and taught that reading lies would do worse than nothing for me, I must not have been taught to read and think critically.

Sorry! Not my intention, at all. As I wasn't raised I honestly have/had no idea whether these are things taught in primary or YW/YM or seminary (as I haven't done those things), or whether like a lot of sexual topics its on the parents to teach, even though there's an understanding that its "supposed" to be taught, or... If like what I experienced as a convert, one isn't supposed to really even look at it.

I was trying to figure out what is the norm (taught; if so by whom, or not; and if so, why?).

Q

[Guest]

We are taught to read out of the best books, to educate ourselves, to delight in truth. People writing with an ax to grind are not academically writing truth, they are writing to make themselves feel better.

[mnn727]

I looked through it all when I was investigating too and came to the same conclusion you did.

For a few years I would go to the anti-websites and try to convince (argue) with them and just found it was a big waste of time, I found the old saying was true "When you roll in the mud with pigs, the pigs like it and you just get dirty"

I spend my time more constructively these days.

As to why people get shaken faith syndrome. I believe manyt people don't really think critically, so if they hear something that they are unsure of they really don't know where to turn or how to research the other side. Also some people like being spoon fed everything rather than research for themselves.

Edited November 1, 2013 by mnn727

[Bini]

Good Morning Bini. I hope you've been well! :)

The more I live and love the gospel of Jesus Christ, the less threatening opposing views become because I become more certain in who and what I am.

-Finrock

Good for you, Finrock! And I don't mean sarcasm. So many of us, I can speak for myself, are not at that point in the gospel.

[Traveler]

....

So 2 things give me real pause surrounding the anti-Mormon-schtuff.

1) Why so many people are shocked or have their faith shaken by this kind of muckraking?

2) Why we are so often counseled (bishopric, mission, sunday school, etc.) to avoid looking at the anti-schtuff, instead of being taught to break it down scientifically / read critically (my bias, i was raised in a science-family, and am a scientist/teacher by trade), or logically.

I can see that it's probably fear of #1 that leads to #2... But...???

I know my own process, and my own methods... So I may be missing something, here.

Do most of all y'all here just not look, or do what I do, or do something totally different?

Is the counsel not to look the party line, or just my locale?

For born & raised folk... We're you taught to read critically (aka scientifically) in the security of home, or did the church used to teach it, or???

For converts, did you have the same "Yikes! Don't do THAT!" Reaction from missionaries and teachers I did?

I'm just baffled by the repeating theme of people learning moot history, or having a personality conflict that could happen anywhere, and completely losing faith. It feels like there's a disconnect somewhere (possibly in my brain B) oy)... Something obvious being missed. Not that this happens at all... But it happens so frequently.

Thoughts?

Q

Greetings Quin - I am a 5th generation Mormon, an engineer and scientist. There are several reason that members are recommended not to spend lots of time with anti stuff. Vort hit the nail on the head of one of the most important - but as a scientist and engineer I would like to highlight some thoughts.

1. I was a part of my high school debate team which was at the time the top competitive team in the state and my debate partner and I won the state championship. One of our most successful methods was what was called distractive arguments. It is a very simple method and we see this method a lot in politics. The idea is to distract one opponents from their message and arguments. In fact it is best to use flawed arguments that can be argued against quite easy - the easier the better and more tempting it is to opponents. Once an opponent is distracted from their message it is very easy to refute the benefit of their arguments - because there will be none - no one will know what it is they wish to accomplish - all they will see is what they oppose and want to end or bring down. The LDS message of a historical apostasy and a restoration is both powerful and obvious - there is no way any religion can intelligently argue that Christianity has been the beacon of light and truth for the last 2000 years or that something unique has happened to mankind over the last 200 years - Science is in essence winning all the traditional religious arguments for LDS - so in essence all that is necessary in any intelligent religious discussion is for LDS to in essence pick up the religious pieces strewn all over the place and in shambles. So one reason to avoid anti LDS stuff is to not be distracted and remain focused on the important points of a religious restoration.

2. Carl Marks and later Joseph Goebbels outlined a very effective propaganda method that has become known as the "Great Lie". In a way this is related to #1 but the essence of this method is that if a person hears a lie often enough they will begin to believe it. It is not about proof it is about social conformity and pier pressure. Although most deductive thinkers like to think themselves immune to such dribble - I would point out that for over 60 years the best minds in the scientific community thought and taught that dinosaurs were cold blooded reptiles - despite all the contrary evidence.

3. This is the final thought I will give in this post - but it is in essence the propaganda method of the excuse. Though it is related to numbers 1 and 2 there is a subtle difference. The truth of G-d is not easy and living the covenants of a Saint is hard and difficult and at times can be discouraging. Thus the anti LDS stuff becomes an easy excuse for those that reach a time of discouragement or a moment of weakness. Of course no intelligent thinker would fall for such an obvious silly reason??? Do not kid yourself - this is one of the most effective means Satan uses to destroy marriage - simply provide and easy excuse for when something worth while gets difficult.

I have personally dealt with several anti LDS arguments and individuals. I have carefully researched concerns and arguments and in all my efforts I have found very little benefit beyond some self aggrandizement obtained by "showing up" the poor arguments - none of which have resulted in converting any opponents or giving me any lasting satisfaction - especially the kind of satisfaction I get reading and studying the scriptures and the joy of learning of scientific discoveries. I find the rewards of pursuing enlightenment far more rewarding that proving silly arguments false.

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

1) Why so many people are shocked or have their faith shaken by this kind of muckraking?

It's important to know what you believe, and why you believe it. A lot of mormons (and people in general), well, just don't.

2) Why we are so often counseled (bishopric, mission, sunday school, etc.) to avoid looking at the anti-schtuff, instead of being taught to break it down scientifically / read critically

I don't understand this one. Nobody ever told me to avoid it at all. In fact, when I was Execuitive Secretary for my Bishop, I was also attending the "are Mormons Christian" class at our local mega-church. The Bishopric was very interested to hear what was being taught there, and I gave updates as part of Bishopric meeting.

When we're kids, the influences in our lives (parents, church leaders, teachers, etc) all try to mold and shape us to become what they want us to become. But when we are all grown up, we make our own decisions about things. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

In a science class textbook, there was a painting of Galileo trying to get the Pope to look through the telescope. The pope and his consorts were drawing back, their hands up in shock, as if defending themselves from an assault by demonic forces. Well, they figured they knew what they believed, but they didn't know why, and such things were a threat to their world. Critics think they've got telescopes, but after I looked through them, most of them seemed more like kaleidoscopes or funhouse mirrors.

[MarginOfError]

The reasons for the instruction are beneficial. I don't care how booksmart and critical you are going in, the purpose of anti-schtuff is to attack your spirit. If you want to look critically at history, pull out some nice, fair, history-based sources. One will have much more success studying simple facts than attacking an argument based more on twists and emotions than information.

That's actually a big part of the critical thinking process. Is the information being presented putting forth an agenda or a thesis? Some may argue that there isn't much difference between those two things, but putting forth agendas often crosses into the territory of manipulation while theses are the purview of persuasion. Evaluating the objectivity, background, and credentials of the source are extremely important to critical evaluation.

And sometimes (often? almost always?) identifying that a source is hell-bent on distorting, misrepresenting, or ignoring important evidence to put forth an agenda is reason enough to stop reading. I usually do. But if I feel the person is putting forth a thesis, I'll usually read on.

[prisonchaplain]

I remember speaking with a Messianic Jewish rabbi. He said that most Jewish people who become "Messianic" (i.e. Christian) were not very observant in their Judaism, if they practiced it at all. With a significant number of LDS being inactive, I'm wondering if it is primarily them that are influenced by critical material. In a sense, they become "investigators" in reverse. In some cases their "conversion" to evangelicalism (or fundamentalist Christianity--even more conservative) may, in reality be from nothing, rather than from sincere LDS observance. I throw this out simply as speculation--though I believe some critics will say as much.

[Praetorian_Brow]

History is written by the victors.

I think most people consider anything that remotely tarnishes the public or social image of the history, the people or the church in general is regarded as anti-mormon. I don't subscribe to the umbrella theory that because our gospel is true, anything remotely connected to our version of the truth is considered unquestionable.

I learned a lot by reading material that fills in the gaps that the glossy brochures don't mention and am grateful for the knowledge that I gained. I grew up in a small branch with a very strict Mormon oriented family, so what I learned as child was an innocence that did not prepare me for the world. We lived in a bubble, that once popped had devastating consequence for our family, as our bubble hid ugly truths.

Maybe my testimony is weak as most people after a long discussion, or a debate will not so subtly point out with a varying amount of disdain, but I still have respect for what key figures within our religion have overcome to be so influential. Some people use their "faith" as a weapon. In the end, I am grateful for some of the information I have read that some will regard as anti-Mormon for it allowed me to be more grateful for the spirit of worth, allowed me to forgive more as I understood the context and actually influenced me to stick with my core beliefs.

Consider how many people learned about The Book of Mormon from the musical or South Park. There is no such thing as bad publicity, even if it is negative, as the people who want to know more, will see past the slanderous agenda.

[Finrock]

Another thing to consider is that we can't be tested without opposition. Our faith cannot be tested without a challenge to it. Anti-Mormon material provides a test. Some people pass, some people fail. Some people avoid the test.

-Finrock

[estradling75]

Another thing to consider is that we can't be tested without opposition. Our faith cannot be tested without a challenge to it. Anti-Mormon material provides a test. Some people pass, some people fail. Some people avoid the test.

-Finrock

I think it would be more fair to say... Some people have different tests... I would think not everyone will need that test

[Guest]

Not being inclined to read vitriol isn't avoiding a test any more than trying out porn or alcohol is valuable as a test to see if I'm prone to addiction.

[Quin]

Not being inclined to read vitriol isn't avoiding a test any more than trying out porn or alcohol is valuable as a test to see if I'm prone to addiction.

I don't think it's inherently a bad thing to avoid known tests.

The first thing that popped to mind was Monty Python's "Let me face the peril!", but on a less flippant vein... There's no way on earth I want to be tested with losing a child. Some people's faiths deepen, some break. Quite frankly, I don't want to know what mine would do, as he potential cost is far too high. And then there's that grey area... Where what is a test for one isnt for another. (I can spend uncountable time in bars and not even be tempted much less tested. I have friends who, if they walk into a bar -or even just near one-, are in actual pain. It's a severe test for them. As the anti-LDS stuff ISN'T a test for me, Im not trying to minimize or dismiss other people's struggles, nor choices of those who actively avoid things which do them (or have the potential) to do them harm.

There's a really great quote that reads

It is easier to exclude harmful passions than to rule them, and to deny them admittance than to control them after they have been admitted.

Seneca

Roman dramatist, philosopher, & politician (5 BC - 65 AD)

Ditto... Just because its easier, doesn't mean it's a bad thing. It's easier not to feel jealousy. Pain in the neck to deal wih after its been admitted.

I think we have challenge ourselves, test ourselves, etc set up,as such a "positive" thing colloquially, that there's a knee jerk avoidance = bad thing that happens a lot (like skipping school to avoid a test, or settling for something less than our best by not challenging ourselves... When really... As you said testing ourselves depends on the value of the test. Lets test our addictive propensities = a GREAT test to avoid. Forever.

Again, just wanted to underscore that just because its my way to look at all sides, that I'm not trying to promote it as the only way, much less the only right way. Just seeking to understand how's and whys of when it's my way, or a totally different way!! :)

Q