What Is Anti-Mormon?

[Stephen]

I leave you all to vote and state your opinions.

[Maureen]

This statement comes close:

Anybody who actively on a regular basis disagees with Mormon doctrine and philosphies is anti-Mormon.

Except I think "actively" must be defined.

If you are a person who does not tolerate the preaching of Mormon doctrine and therefore "actively" talks against it - I would consider that "anti". My husband is the first to confess he is "anti". I think for him though he kind of dwells on his childhood and how he feels his parents (somewhat exaggerate) "rammed religion down his throat". He finds Mormonism a little anti-family due to the temple and unproductive due to missions (or in other words a waste of 2 good years). He even thinks that generally speaking Mormons think they are better than others because they are Mormons - even some of his family members. I disagree with him on that one regarding his own family. He does enjoy reading about Mormon history though and sees many Mormons as being very ignorant and unappreciative of it.

M.

[Guest Ammon]

Anti simply means against. If your not for us, meaning you don't agree with us, your against us, IMHO.

[Jenda]

I voted for this one: Anybody who actively on a regular basis disagees with Mormon doctrine and philosphies is anti-Mormon. But I would hasten to add that I would also put in the qualifier: to the extreme. I, myself disagree regularly with LDS doctrine, but I don't consider myself "anti".

[Stephen]

I personally think the term anti-Mormon is used too loosely by Mormons at least in Utah it certainly is.

In this state if you are non-Mormon and disagree with some Mormon doctrines or all of them you are anti-Mormon.

Non-Mormons in general who are not interested in joining the Mormon Church for no other reason then they like their lifestyle the way it is are usually labelled anti-Mormon. The term is over used at best and abused at worst.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

A person who actively works to draw Mormons away from the Church, or keep people from joining the Church, may be an anti-Mormon, especially if he's not doing so in the context of an attempt to convert them to his own religion or retain them as members. (Otherwise, turnabout being fair play, Mormons would be considered "anti-Catholic" merely for trying to convert Catholics to Mormonism.) A caveat: even a person who's trying to convert Mormons to his own religion might be considered "anti-Mormon" if his conversion or retention efforts place more emphasis on criticizing Mormonism than on promoting his own religion. (Same holds for a Mormon missionary who used the same approach in trying to convert Catholics.)

A person who lies about the Church and it's history is anti-Mormon. (Unless we're talking about a member of the Church who lies about it or its history, in which case he's "pro-Mormon" but anti-truth.)

A person who holds the Church to a standard he doesn't apply to other institutions, including those he favors, is anti-Mormon. (Unless we're talking about a member of the Church who holds the Church to a higher standard because he believes that where much is given -- like the fulness of the gospel -- much is required.)

A person who makes a career out of criticizing the Church is anti-Mormon.

A person who obsesses with criticizing the Church, as opposed to religions generally or all religions but his own, is anti-Mormon.

The use of the word "anybody" in the poll is too broad. There are usually exceptions to most rules.

[AFDaw]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 23 2004, 07:31 PM

The use of the word "anybody" in the poll is too broad. There are usually exceptions to most rules.

I agree.

[Guest Starsky]

I agree with PD also.

[Rodney]

Originally posted by Ammon@Mar 23 2004, 07:17 PM

Anti simply means against.  If your not for us, meaning you don't agree with us, your against us, IMHO.

So, basically you're anti-everything not Mormon, right?

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Ammon@Mar 23 2004, 06:17 PM

Anti simply means against. If your not for us, meaning you don't agree with us, your against us, IMHO.

I think this statement shows signs of a persecution complex.

M.

[porterrockwell]

Originally posted by Maureen@Mar 23 2004, 07:11 PM

This statement comes close:

Anybody who actively on a regular basis disagees with Mormon doctrine and philosphies is anti-Mormon.

Except I think "actively" must be defined.

If you are a person who does not tolerate the preaching of Mormon doctrine and therefore "actively" talks against it - I would consider that "anti". My husband is the first to confess he is "anti". I think for him though he kind of dwells on his childhood and how he feels his parents (somewhat exaggerate) "rammed religion down his throat". He finds Mormonism a little anti-family due to the temple and unproductive due to missions (or in other words a waste of 2 good years). He even thinks that generally speaking Mormons think they are better than others because they are Mormons - even some of his family members. I disagree with him on that one regarding his own family. He does enjoy reading about Mormon history though and sees many Mormons as being very ignorant and unappreciative of it.

M.

That's funny, because my family let me choose on my own when I was about 11. Anti-Family huh? Proclamation to the World, FAMILY Home Evening...etc. The mission thing is WAY off. The Temple is the most beautiful thing I have ever experienced. That fact that we strive for worthiness to perform endowments in the Temple for the PURPOSE of Eternal Family should be soul proof of our Pro-Family atmosphere. We DO NOT think we are better than everyone else, we want everybody to have what we do. We wanna share the wealth so to speak. We do, however, want exaltation and to be with our Heavenly Father again.

And those who do not wish to accept the same standards as we do are merely throwing themselves into self loathing rather than us being "better" than anybody. In reality, I know many Mainstreamers who have probably led a better life than I have. But I Do feel privelaged to have been born into an LDS family. I wouldn't trade it for all the riches and carnal opportunities of the world. So if that is what you call "thinking your better" than someone else, I guess I am. But that is your problem, not mine.

I actually love my Family and Church history. I am related to Joseph Smith through Parley P. Pratt, and my great, great, great, grandfather George Benjamin Wallace blessed the Northwest Cornerstone of the Salt Lake Temple. Not to mention, 6 Apostles were ordained in his home along with various other church officials and meetings of that time.

I think it is just the area you live in Maureen, because some of us Mormons are pretty good at our schtick.

[Snow]

Originally posted by porterrockwell@Mar 24 2004, 10:48 AM

And those who do not wish to accept the same standards as we do are merely throwing themselves into self loathing rather than us being "better" than anybody. In reality, I know many Mainstreamers who have probably led a better life than I have. But I Do feel privelaged to have been born into an LDS family. I wouldn't trade it for all the riches and carnal opportunities of the world. So if that is what you call "thinking your better" than someone else, I guess I am. But that is your problem, not mine.

Dude,

You need to starting thinking about your future. I have started thinking about your future and this is what I see: A 33 year old, divorce, estranged for his kids, drinking too much, pregnant girlfriend.

Lighten up a bit.

[Faerie]

I agree, how can ANYONE say that the church is anti-family??!?!?!?! My SDA friends who came to church with us couldn't stop commenting on how family oriented our church is and how much emphasis our church puts on eternal families...

I'm completely perplexed why you would say that the TEMPLE is what makes us "anti-family"

[AFDaw]

Growing up a friend of mine was Assembly of God and I attended church with her for a while, but she didn't tell her friends there that I was LDS because she wanted them to see me as a person first instead of a religion. SO one day we were leaving and she asked this guy (in front of me) "What do you know of the Mormons?" and he said "The only thing I know is that have a very strong sense of family and community and that's what makes it hard for us to convert them."

[porterrockwell]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 24 2004, 12:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 24 2004, 12:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--porterrockwell@Mar 24 2004, 10:48 AM

And those who do not wish to accept the same standards as we do are merely throwing themselves into self loathing rather than us being "better" than anybody.  In reality, I know many Mainstreamers who have probably led a better life than I have.  But I Do feel privelaged to have been born into an LDS family.  I wouldn't trade it for all the riches and carnal opportunities of the world.  So if that is what you call "thinking your better" than someone else, I guess I am.  But that is your problem, not mine. 

Dude,

You need to starting thinking about your future. I have started thinking about your future and this is what I see: A 33 year old, divorce, estranged for his kids, drinking too much, pregnant girlfriend.

Lighten up a bit.

One I would never touch the alcihol, because there is alcoholism and addiction in my family tree. Second, all I am saying, is why can't we as Mormons just be allowed to be happy and Joyous in our position. Once someone sees us going to church, spreading the word, and trying to rid our loves of our sin-nature, they instantly go to the, "well they think they are better than everybody else" shpiel. What's funny is the only people I have ever heard that from are people that follow after their own selfish lusts, and openly admit they don't care about improving themselves. So in that instance all I am saying is too bad for you then. The only people to be concerned with are the "Sunday Mormons", the ones who portray themselves as decent, clean individuals, but are actually wallowing in all they speak against. Now noone is perfect, granted, but I think discernment is a fairly easy thing to do in this circumstance.

[Faerie]

I'm perfect, I just try to keep it a secret. LOL

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Faerie@Mar 24 2004, 11:55 AM

I agree, how can ANYONE say that the church is anti-family??!?!?!?! My SDA friends who came to church with us couldn't stop commenting on how family oriented our church is and how much emphasis our church puts on eternal families...

I'm completely perplexed why you would say that the TEMPLE is what makes us "anti-family"

Non-Mormon family members of Mormons who marry in the temple, can't attend the wedding. Think for a minute how disappointed a parent might be if she were told she couldn't attend her son's or daughter's wedding, and you get the picture.

[Faerie]

oh i've been in the situation...i pondered if she was referring to the specific ceremonies and such...good point..

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Mar 24 2004, 12:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Mar 24 2004, 12:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Faerie@Mar 24 2004, 11:55 AM

I agree, how can ANYONE say that the church is anti-family??!?!?!?! My SDA friends who came to church with us couldn't stop commenting on how family oriented our church is and how much emphasis our church puts on eternal families...

I'm completely perplexed why you would say that the TEMPLE is what makes us "anti-family"

Non-Mormon family members of Mormons who marry in the temple, can't attend the wedding. Think for a minute how disappointed a parent might be if she were told she couldn't attend her son's or daughter's wedding, and you get the picture.

Most who come from those kinds of situations have a 'ring' ceremony for the non-members after the wedding or just before the reception...it has worked great for all the ones I know.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by porterrockwell@Mar 24 2004, 12:09 PM

...Once someone sees us going to church, spreading the word, and trying to rid our loves of our sin-nature, they instantly go to the, "well they think they are better than everybody else" shpiel.

Yes, I agree that could be the case. Judging people is all about perception. My husband may perceive things in people that may not be true. I do disagree with his assessment. His brother (the new Branch president) is a sweetheart and I do not believe he has that "holier-than-thou" attitude. Now I have a SIL that might be one of those types though.

What's funny is the only people I have ever heard that from are people that follow after their own selfish lusts, and openly admit they don't care about improving themselves.

I wouldn't say that my husband is one of those lustful people. Although he still has the "hots" for me.

M.

[porterrockwell]

Originally posted by Maureen+Mar 24 2004, 02:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Mar 24 2004, 02:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--porterrockwell@Mar 24 2004, 12:09 PM

...Once someone sees us going to church, spreading the word, and trying to rid our loves of our sin-nature, they instantly go to the, "well they think they are better than everybody else" shpiel.

Yes, I agree that could be the case. Judging people is all about perception. My husband may perceive things in people that may not be true. I do disagree with his assessment. His brother (the new Branch president) is a sweetheart and I do not believe he has that "holier-than-thou" attitude. Now I have a SIL that might be one of those types though.

What's funny is the only people I have ever heard that from are people that follow after their own selfish lusts, and openly admit they don't care about improving themselves.

I wouldn't say that my husband is one of those lustful people. Although he still has the "hots" for me.

M.

I wasn't refering to you Maureen. Or your husband. I am refering to those that I have come in contact with. On judgement, I think there are two kinds. One, you must have good judgement, but not take it too far into displacing ones position as secondary. At the same time, if one has exaltation(or is striving for it), and the other does not, doesn't one of the two have a greater light about them?(Not that we have to rub people's faces in it.)

[Cal]

Originally posted by Ammon@Mar 23 2004, 06:17 PM

Anti simply means against. If your not for us, meaning you don't agree with us, your against us, IMHO.

The logical falacy of "black and white" thinking. Thank you for the illustration--most illuminating.

[Cal]

PD--I guess what they are saying is that the Church is pro-MORMON family, not necessarily ALL families.

It seems to me that the church's emphasis on "families" is something of a distractor. After all, what culture is "anti-family". To not be pro-family is like being anti-human race. The church seems to be trying to distinguish itself from other religions on the basis of something (pro-family) that virutally NOBODY questions anyway.

Getting off the topic a little------

Growing up in the 50's and 60's, there was not all this EMPHASIS on families, as though it made the church distinct from others. The emphasis was on what made the church distinct theologically. There was a strong emplasis on the JS story, on the BOM and why those things made the church so credible.

However, with the advent of discoveries of the papyrus of the BoA, DNA and linguistic studies of native americans etc, the church really didn't want to try to draw people to the church JUST on the basis of the JS story, BoM etc. What the church DOES have going for it was the strong sense of community, whole family involvement and the promotion of good ethics. These things can be promoted and advertised with very little controversy, and appeal to people widely. The church is promoting the SIMILARITIES between us and the rest of the world, not the differences. [This may be why the church is so vocal about legalizing gay marriage(particularly if based on SC freedom of religion decisions) . Legalizing gay marriage could lead to legalizing polygamy, which would, again, present the church with the conundrum of having to justify why we don't promote it in the church again (which I'm sure we won't--since it emphasizes the DIFFERENCE between us and the rest of the world) The direction of the church seems to be toward becoming more acceptable to the rest of the world, not less.

Another bit of speculation based on a certain amount of fact----I have a theory that another reason that the church should emphasize the FAMILY as the basis for conversion is that, were it to be proven that, say the BoM, were a falcification, a lawsuit for money paid to the church as tithing could be maintained on the basis of fraud or misrepresentation. Though, at the present time, there is probably not enough evidence against the truth of the BoM to show misrepresentation; but, with what has come out in DNA, and other scientific evidence regarding the BoM, church leaders have to be, at least, a little concerned about promoting church membership and the paying of tithing on the literal truth of the BoM or BoA. Just defending such lawsuits would be devastating. So the church leaders are probably very smart to promote the FAMILY as the driving concept behind church membership.

Now, this is not "anti-" is it? It is not intended to degrade or misrepresent anything. If there is a misstatement of fact please inform me.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Mar 24 2004, 04:53 PM

PD--I guess what they are saying is that the Church is pro-MORMON family, not necessarily ALL families.

It seems to me that the church's emphasis on "families" is something of a distractor. After all, what culture is "anti-family". To not be pro-family is like being anti-human race.  The church seems to be trying to distinguish itself from other religions on the basis of something (pro-family) that virutally NOBODY questions anyway. 

Cal,

Today I have been professionally adjudicated as competant to speak for ProudDuck. I doubt he is saying that the Church actually is not pro-all-families but rather that to the extent that some people view it was non-family friendly, one of the reasons for viewing it thusly, is the effect that temple marriages have on family members who can't attend.

Cal, you suggest that Church emphasis is a distractor. Do you have any reason (evidence) to believe that or does it just seems like a plausible idea. Personally, I doubt that anyone in Church leadership started thinking back in the 50's and 60's, "hey, were gonna discover the BoA scrolls and probably have some DNA issues with the BoM. We ought to get out in front of this and come of with a new strategy to keep people's minds off it. Let's start pushing involment in the enviromentalist movement. No, wait, how about families. Let's push families..."

That sounds like an Oliver Stone idea Cal.

Emphasis on families has been around since Joseph Smith and the more recent emphasis is a natural outgrowth of our theology and culture.

Beyond that, your idea that the Church pushes families to head off a lawsuit because of a BoM "fraud" sounds even more Oliver Stoneish than Oliver Stone.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Cal@Mar 24 2004, 04:53 PM

So the church leaders are probably very smart to promote the FAMILY as the driving concept behind church membership.

The last time I talked with LDS missionaries they gave me the impression they wanted to emphasize that only the LDS church has a prophet. It seemed to me that having a prophet was more important than making Christ the centre of their religion.

On the anti-family remark. PD is correct about the temple's involvement with an anti-family attitude. But not only cannot non-members attend a temple wedding but non-endowed members also cannot attend. My husband's youngest sister was not able to attend either of her LDS brothers' sealings. But she was able to attend our wedding and so was the rest of his family. I guess it really comes down to what is expected. A non-mormon family attending a wedding ceremony is customary. I was 7 when I went to my first wedding ceremony and reception. But growing up Mormon - a child grows up expecting not to attend a sealing until they are endowed. So in a way it also depends on what your expectations are.

M.