Dont leave the church because....

[Guest MormonGator]

18 hours ago, Hemisphere said:

it also holds true with multigenerational families in the church that hold consideral influence. Especially the ones that think of themselves as "church nobility" and consider the church their personal social sandbox 

Another 100% accurate comment. The one person I met who was a member of this clique expected the ward to bow down to him. We didn't. I liked how he always looked down on my long hair and tattoos though. What he didn't realize is that I am also from a well off family and I can match snobbishness and arrogance with the best of them.  When he saw that my house was bigger than his he was stunned. Chalk it up to a learning experience and move on kid. 

Edited August 8, 2016 by MormonGator

[Hemisphere]

11 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Another 100% accurate comment. The one person I met who was a member of this clique expected the ward to bow down to him. We didn't. I liked how he always looked down on my long hair and tattoos though. What he didn't realize is that I am also from a well off family and I can match snobbishness and arrogance with the best of them.  

unfortunately this is a well accepted notion that finds enough tolerance and emulation through wards and branches. The smaller ones are the worst. I remember that my first branch president tried to bully me into submission. He just didn´t expect that I would make this a very public deal across the stake. The same bishop reduced a congreation of 60 people down to 20. 

Things likes those factors usually can be pointed out at but rarely are taken care off. Voicing these things get you ousted and shunned. As I noticed again in this forum with certain individuals who see speaking out as an affront against the church ... 

Edited August 7, 2016 by Hemisphere

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Hemisphere said:

. As I noticed again in this forum with certain individuals who see speaking out as an affront against the church ... 

The overwhelming majority of people here are wonderful, for the record. Even people whom I disagree with on this or that I still think are great people. Obviously you won't get along with everyone nor will you like everyone. But I really like the majority of people here a great deal and learn a lot from them. 

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Hemisphere said:

. As I noticed again in this forum with certain individuals who see speaking out as an affront against the church ... 

The overwhelming majority of people here are wonderful, for the record. Even people whom I disagree with on this or that I still think are great people. Obviously you won't get along with everyone nor will you like everyone. But I really like the majority of people here a great deal and learn a lot from them. 

[Hemisphere]

13 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

The overwhelming majority of people here are wonderful, for the record. Even people whom I disagree with on this or that I still think are great people. Obviously you won't get along with everyone nor will you like everyone. But I really like the majority of people here a great deal and learn a lot from them. 

I don´t doubt it. I just have certain specialists in mind who I put already on the ignore list. because obviously they have no room for other peoples opinions and their life in their heart. And they really get up personal and offensive while putting themselves on a moral high ground which also serves as analogy with people you can meet at church which I tend to avoid if it is somehow possible

Edited August 7, 2016 by Hemisphere

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Hemisphere said:

I don´t doubt it. I just have certain specialist in mind who I put already on the ignore list. because obviously they have no room for other peoples opinions and their life in their heart. And they really get up personal and offensive while putting themselves on a moral high ground which also serves as analogy with people you can meet at church which I tend to avoid if it is somehow possible

Quit talking about me! 

(totally kidding, hope I'm not the person!) 

[LeSellers]

2 hours ago, Maureen said:

Hemisphere, can you give an example of something in written form (literature) that you feel did not make "a good case"? And please don't add a link, even if you're just trying to be funny.

I won't, but here's an outsider's analysis of the state of anti-Mormon arguments:
 

Quote

The title of this paper ["Losing the Battle and not Knowing It"] reflects five conclusions we have come to concerning Mormon-evangelical debates. The first is that there are, contrary to popular evangelical perceptions, legitimate Mormon scholars. We use the term scholar in its formal sense of "intellectual, erudite; skilled in intellectual investigation; trained in ancient languages." Broadly, Mormon scholarship can be divided in to four categories: traditional, neo-orthodox, liberal and cultural. We are referring to the largest and most influential of the four categories-traditional Mormon scholars. It is a point of fact that the Latter-day Saints are not an anti-intellectual group like Jehovah's Witnesses. Mormon, in distinction to groups like JWs, produce work that has more than the mere appearance of scholarship.

The second conclusion we have come to is that Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex.

A third conclusion we have come to is that currently there are, as far as we are aware, no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibly interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writing. In a survey of twenty recent evangelical books criticizing Mormonism we found that none interact with this growing body of literature. Only a handful demonstrate any awareness of pertinent works. Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been refuted; some are sensationalistic while others are simply ridiculous. A number of these books claim to be "the definitive" book on the matter. That they make no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the authors' integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility.

Our fourth conclusion is that at the academic level evangelicals are losing the debate with the Mormons. We are losing the battle and do not know it. In recent years the sophistication and erudition of LDS apologetics has risen considerably while evangelical responses have not. Those who have the skills necessary for this task rarely demonstrate an interest in the issues. Often they do not even know that there is a need. In large part this is due entirely to ignorance of the relevant literature.

Finally, our fifth conclusion is that most involved in the counter-cult movement lack the skills and training necessary to answer Mormon scholarly apologetic. The need is great for trained evangelical biblical scholars, theologians, philosophers and historians to examine and answer the growing body of literature produced by traditional LDS scholars and apologists.

And, later, in the same article:

Quote

The article by James White, "Of Cities and Swords: The Impossible Task of Mormon Apologetics," was an attempt to introduce evangelicals to LDS apologetics, to the work of FARMS, and, in the process, critique the group. This article failed on all three points. White's article does not mention a single example of the literature we have presented in this paper. He does not accurately describe the work of FARMS, or of LDS scholarship in general. He gives his readers the mistaken impression that their research is not respected in the broader academic community. We believe that we have demonstrated that this is simply not the case. His attempted critique picks out two of the weakest examples. Not only does he pick weak examples, he does not give even these an adequate critique. This is nothing more than "straw man" argumentation.

Lehi

Edited August 7, 2016 by LeSellers

[Just_A_Guy]

19 hours ago, Maureen said:

What about biographers? JAG just recently mentioned in the Rough Stone Rolling thread "...that Donna Hill wasn't exactly a raging anti-Mormon; and her book is far from a hit piece...". It's hard to tell from his wording if he still considers her an anti-mormon, but we know he doesn't see her as a raging anti-mormon. And then there's Richard Bushman who is a faithful mormon but also tells the truth in Rough Stone Rolling. So both authors tell the truth in their biographies of Joseph Smith, one is non-mormon and the other is mormon. Do you think when Donna Hill wrote her biography, that she did it with bad intent? I'm just trying to get an idea of who you think fits this quote.

M.

FWIW--I didn't know it at the time; but I believe Hill was actually a Mormon, though she leaned towards what was then called the "New Mormon History" with less of an emphasis on faith promotion.  

For my part, I usually try to avoid labeling any particular work as "anti-Mormon" because a) it's such a loaded phrase, and b) I think it's stronger, rhetorically, to point out exactly what the flaw is with any particular piece, than to merely point out that it opposes my own worldview (well, duh!).  The exception is that amongst other Mormons, I may say something like "you've been reading too much anti-Mormon literature", as a sort of shorthand for "you've just been accepting what you're being told, without having done your own intellectual legwork to figure this out on your own".

There are certain recurring behavioral/rhetorical patterns that I associate with "anti-Mormonism", which include (n addition to the tactics Jane_Doe mentions) a calculated intent to discourage one's audience from embracing the LDS religion on its own terms; b) cherry-picking of evidence to support a particular argument while ignoring commonly-known evidence that undercuts that same argument; c) doggedly promoting a single (critical) interpretation of the facts even when the weight of the evidence is ambiguous or lends itself to a more sympathetic explanation; d) referring to Mormon historical figures in ways that they were never referred to in life (Joseph Smith as "Joe", Brigham Young as "Brig", etc); e) overly sweeping and/or unfair generalizations; and f) use of heavily loaded terms ("deluded", "scheme"; ad infinitum).  

 None of these, though, are really litmus tests.  Justice Stewart's description of pornography seems to apply to anti-Mormonism as well:  "I know it when I see it".

 

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

a) a calculated intent to discourage one's audience from embracing the LDS religion on its own terms

b) cherry-picking of evidence to support a particular argument while ignoring commonly-known evidence that undercuts that same argument

c) doggedly promoting a single (critical) interpretation of the facts even when the weight of the evidence is ambiguous or lends itself to a more sympathetic explanation

d) referring to Mormon historical figures in ways that they were never referred to in life (Joseph Smith as "Joe", Brigham Young as "Brig", etc)

e) overly sweeping and/or unfair generalizations; and f) use of heavily loaded terms ("deluded", "scheme"; ad infinitum).  

JAG, I think this is a great list.  And while I agree that maybe one trait alone may not be a litmus test, it is hard to argue that any piece with ALL of these traits would be considered scholarly.

[Traveler]

On ‎8‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 4:17 PM, Maureen said:

Reason 4 for not leaving the LDS church is Anti-mormon Literature. What is anti-mormon literature? Is it only literature that is written or spoken of by those who LDS believe are anti-mormon, whether the literature is true or false? For example, Sandra and Jerald Tanner mentioned the seer stone being used for translating the BofM in the '80s. They were considered anti-mormon but the information they provided regarding the seer stone is the exact information that the LDS church recognizes now as true. So is anti-mormon literature only anti-mormon when provided by those considered to be anti-mormon?

M.

Jesus warned of gathering grapes admits thorns or figs among thistles.   He did not warn about gathering grapes in strawberry patches.  I believe this is because grapes and strawberry are just different versions of foods one can eat.  Thus someone fostering strawberries is of a different opinion than someone fostering grapes.  But there are some that have no desire to foster any useful ideas (food) but have one and only one purpose – to be a thorn is to prevent someone from picking fruit they thought or intended to eat.

I can understand someone thinking some other fruit is better but to not offer something that one can compare and decide for themselves which is better is not the same as declaring someone fruit in their basket is poison.   Anti-literature is literature that by intension is thorny and has no intent of converting someone to any religion but intends to turn someone away from a specific religion.

 

The Traveler

Edited August 8, 2016 by Traveler

[tesuji]

On 8/6/2016 at 4:57 PM, Maureen said:

Jane_Doe, could you give an example of any anti-mormon that provided literature with any of what you have described - spinning, half-truths, strawmen arguments, downright lies, or other falsehood methodology?

M.

For examples - http://en.fairmormon.org/Countercult_ministries

FairMormon.org is a great pro-Mormon website, created by volunteer "apologists" - people who defend the Mormon church against lies, distortions and misunderstandings.

[tesuji]

Here's a classic - of course, it's by a Mormon scholar, and he's being sarcastic. It's actually not about how to be an anti-Mormon, but how to spot anti-Mormon tricks

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/hugh-nibley_write-anti-mormon-book/

[Guest MormonGator]

13 minutes ago, tesuji said:

For examples - http://en.fairmormon.org/Countercult_ministries

FairMormon.org is a great pro-Mormon website, created by volunteer "apologists" - people who defend the Mormon church against lies, distortions and misunderstandings.

 

5 minutes ago, tesuji said:

Here's a classic - of course, it's by a Mormon scholar, and he's being sarcastic. It's actually not about how to be an anti-Mormon, but how to spot anti-Mormon tricks

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/hugh-nibley_write-anti-mormon-book/

Gotta say it. Two GREAT resources for defending the faith. Great choices @tesuji!!! 

[UtahTexan]

You do not need reasons not to leave.

You just need a reason to stay:  It is True.

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

You do not need reasons not to leave.

You just need a reason to stay:  It is True.

That's a great point UtahTexan! The two are different in reality.

[cdowis]

On 8/6/2016 at 6:17 PM, Maureen said:

Reason 4 for not leaving the LDS church is Anti-mormon Literature. What is anti-mormon literature? Is it only literature that is written or spoken of by those who LDS believe are anti-mormon, whether the literature is true or false? For example, Sandra and Jerald Tanner mentioned the seer stone being used for translating the BofM in the '80s. They were considered anti-mormon but the information they provided regarding the seer stone is the exact information that the LDS church recognizes now as true. So is anti-mormon literature only anti-mormon when provided by those considered to be anti-mormon?

Having many years experience in this area, let me give my perspective.

They are anti-Mormon because:

1. Their goal is not for an honest discussion of our differences, but for the utter destruction of the church.  In their lectures, they revel in the fact that members are leaving the church.  They declare that is their goal.

2. Their interpretation of historical events.  Their view of church history is always based on their view of Joseph Smith as a fraud, and they refuse to consider any other possible explanation.  Their "black hole" theory of the last manuscript is only one possible theory on why JS did not re-interpret the lost pages, and it is also the least likely. 

3. They are professional antiMormons.  They are paid to "educate" the public on the faults and flaws in the church with the purpose of convincing them not to investigate the church, or to leave the church.  They offer no specific alternative, and studies show that over 30% of those leaving the church are now atheists or otherwise unaffiliated.  They convince Christians to leave their Christian church, and it appears that this results in many of  them becoming godless.

These are not nice people, regardless of their charisma.

Edited August 13, 2016 by cdowis

[cdowis]

On 8/8/2016 at 4:01 PM, tesuji said:

For examples - http://en.fairmormon.org/Countercult_ministries

FairMormon.org is a great pro-Mormon website, created by volunteer "apologists" - people who defend the Mormon church against lies, distortions and misunderstandings.

In my view, it is a site designed for scholars and geeks, and not really for the general public.    Basically the article tends to get lost in the details, and misses the human touch.  it needs to be more "user friendly".  

Edited August 13, 2016 by cdowis

[Guest]

On 8/13/2016 at 0:24 PM, cdowis said:

Having many years experience in this area, let me give my perspective.

They are anti-Mormon because:

1. Their goal is not for an honest discussion of our differences, but for the utter destruction of the church.  In their lectures, they revel in the fact that members are leaving the church.  They declare that is their goal.

2. Their interpretation of historical events.  Their view of church history is always based on their view of Joseph Smith as a fraud, and they refuse to consider any other possible explanation.  Their "black hole" theory of the last manuscript is only one possible theory on why JS did not re-interpret the lost pages, and it is also the least likely. 

3. They are professional antiMormons.  They are paid to "educate" the public on the faults and flaws in the church with the purpose of convincing them not to investigate the church, or to leave the church.  They offer no specific alternative, and studies show that over 30% of those leaving the church are now atheists or otherwise unaffiliated.  They convince Christians to leave their Christian church, and it appears that this results in many of  them becoming godless.

These are not nice people, regardless of their charisma.

What I believe you are saying is that even if most of their "facts" are correct, it is their interpretations and characterizations that are all either false or decidedly tilted towards the negative.

Example:

FACT: Joseph was paid to do some mining work for a man who wanted to find gold.

CHARACTERIZATION: Joseph Smith was a gold-digger.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Guest

[zil]

41 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Example:

FACT: Joseph was paid to do some mining work for a man who wanted to find gold.

CHARACTERIZATION: Joseph Smith was a gold-digger.

I'd like to be a gold-digger.  Does anyone know where enough is buried to make it worth the effort of digging it up?

Edited August 15, 2016 by zil
Cuz if there's no gold there, I'd just be a dirt-digger and I don't wanna be that.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, zil said:

I'd like to be a gold-digger

Thank goodness I made you sign a pre-nup. 

Edited August 15, 2016 by MormonGator

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

What I believe you are saying is that even if most of their "facts" are correct, it is their interpretations and characterizations that are all either false or decidedly tilted towards the negative.

Example:

FACT: Joseph was paid to do some mining work for a man who wanted to find gold.

CHARACTERIZATION: Joseph Smith was a gold-digger.

One of the most recent ones that sticks in my mind.

Baptism for the Dead are performed in the Temple becomes

Necromantic rites are performed in the basement of Mormon temples