If You're Not With Us, You're Against Us?

[Jason]

The title of this thread is pretty clear, and I think explains the sentiments of many LDS I've encountered in my short lifetime.

I guess the question remains, Can non and former LDS be critical of the LDS church, and not be considered anti-Mormon at the same time?

What distinguishes an anti-Mormon from a non-Mormon critic? Is there a difference?

For myself, I see a lot of good things about Mormonism that really benefit the membership. I can say that I've taken quite a few experiences from Mormonism that have and will continue to benefit me throughout my life. Yet I still point out what I see as shortcomings and failings in the religion as I suppose I hope to improve it for those who belong and for the next generation that comes along. Is that wrong?

Thoughts?

[gabelpa]

The title of this thread is pretty clear, and I think explains the sentiments of many LDS I've encountered in my short lifetime.

I guess the question remains, Can non and former LDS be critical of the LDS church, and not be considered anti-Mormon at the same time?

What distinguishes an anti-Mormon from a non-Mormon critic? Is there a difference?

For myself, I see a lot of good things about Mormonism that really benefit the membership. I can say that I've taken quite a few experiences from Mormonism that have and will continue to benefit me throughout my life. Yet I still point out what I see as shortcomings and failings in the religion as I suppose I hope to improve it for those who belong and for the next generation that comes along. Is that wrong?

Thoughts?

Depends, are you derogatory towards the church? Do you encourage those questioning their faith to leave rather than read and pray? Do you encourage behaviour among mormons unbecoming of a Latter-Day Saint? If you were a minister, would you support someone who wishes to join the LDS Church even if they were leaving your own congregation? What if it was an entire family or even half of your flock?

It is possible to be critical without being anti-mormon, but I have met few who are able to do so.

[sixpacktr]

I guess you have to ask yourself the question: why would they care what I say? If I were to go to Rome and meet with Pope Benedict, and point out to him that celebate priests were wrong, and that I felt that women ought to hold the PH, do you honestly think he'd listen? I sincerely doubt it. I'd be pepper on fly poop to him, because I don't have a dog in the fight. And I think that is really what it comes down to.

There are too many people in the world today that are busybodies, trying to fix everything to match what they think it should be, even if it doesn't affect them (I'm not poking at you Jason, just making an observation). Homosexual marriage is wrong because it affects an institution; two men that want to have sex behind closed doors is none of my business and I wouldn't insist that they be celebate so that I wouldn't be offended. Tobacco is harmful to you and I believe you shouldn't smoke, but what right do I have to state you can't smoke in your home or car?

I take it more along the lines of Satan's plan of coercion, force people to do what I believe to be right instead of them changing to be more Christlike from within.

BY said it very well when he stated that we shouldn't worry about other people's faults but concentrate on our own and let them handle their own follies. The world would be a much better place if everyone would just mind their own darn business and make themselves the best they could be.

Why, it'd be the death of the Democratic party!

[prisonchaplain]

Depends, are you derogatory towards the church?

If disagreement is respectful, and such is not considered "derogatory," then we're okay.

Do you encourage those questioning their faith to leave rather than read and pray?

The answer is often both for critics. For example, if I believe my church is closer to godly and biblical truth, and a wavering LDS member were to say to me, "I think I should leave and join your church." I might well say, "Pray and study. If the Spirit of God gives you peace and confidence, I'd be happy to welcome you." Would that make me anti? I'm sure you'd do the same for me, if I was so inclined to move towards your church.

Do you encourage behaviour among mormons unbecoming of a Latter-Day Saint?

I don't even think any unapologetic "antis" encourage immorality.

If you were a minister, would you support someone who wishes to join the LDS Church even if they were leaving your own congregation? What if it was an entire family or even half of your flock?

Would you? If a family or faction in your Ward wanted to leave and join an evangelical church--claiming God had told them to do so, would you support them?

[prisonchaplain]

Who's business is it if another's faith is in error? Nobody's and everybody's. In the book co-written by an LDS professor and an evangelical one (Robinson & Blomberg), How Wide the Divide?, for all their reconciling of some erroneous and inflammatory rhetoric with truth, their join end-conclusion is that LDS will continue to proselytize evangelicals and evangelicals will return the favor. So long as everyone is respectful "begging to differ," could be seen as a sign of caring, rather than antagonism.

[Jason]

Depends, are you derogatory towards the church?

On a few issues, yes.

Do you encourage those questioning their faith to leave rather than read and pray?

I believe I've helped people stay LDS, and helped people leave. Ultimately I do not make the decision for them.

Do you encourage behaviour among mormons unbecoming of a Latter-Day Saint?

I don't "encourage" anything. I accept that an adult can make up their own mind.

If you were a minister, would you support someone who wishes to join the LDS Church even if they were leaving your own congregation? What if it was an entire family or even half of your flock?

My church does not pretend to be the end all and be all of Christianity. So no, it would not bother me. If they find greater spirituality somewhere else, be it of whatever religion (including non-Christian religions) then good for them.

It is possible to be critical without being anti-mormon, but I have met few who are able to do so.

Perhaps that's more due to some standard you have in your mind, as opposed to what others might think.

[sixpacktr]

Who's business is it if another's faith is in error? Nobody's and everybody's. In the book co-written by an LDS professor and an evangelical one (Robinson & Blomberg), How Wide the Divide?, for all their reconciling of some erroneous and inflammatory rhetoric with truth, their join end-conclusion is that LDS will continue to proselytize evangelicals and evangelicals will return the favor. So long as everyone is respectful "begging to differ," could be seen as a sign of caring, rather than antagonism.

And that is the rub, isn't it? There is being respectful and being antagonistic. I think that people can disagree in a very respectful manner on what is or isn't 'correct', from religion to politics to sex to today's weather. Then there are those that love to debate, love to show their learning, love to 'prove' others wrong.

I ran into missionaries, both on my mission and after, that loved to debate and try to put down others to show their superior way of thinking. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now. We can be respectful of other's beliefs while disagreeing, and let the chips fall where they may.

The only thing that truly converts is the Spirit anyway, and it will flee at the first sign of contention...

[Snow]

What distinguishes an anti-Mormon from a non-Mormon critic? Is there a difference?

Intent to cause harm.

[StrawberryFields]

<div class='quotemain'>

What distinguishes an anti-Mormon from a non-Mormon critic? Is there a difference?

Intent to cause harm.

I couldn't agree more.

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

What distinguishes an anti-Mormon from a non-Mormon critic? Is there a difference?

Intent to cause harm.

I think I agree. But we should probably define "harm".

For example, If I make an argument about some issue in the church, and someone who is a member decides I'm right and leaves the church, (or becomes critical themselves, or whatever) have I caused "harm"?

This is, I feel, opposed to the likes of "Saints Alive" who intentionally distort LDS teachings and practices for their own nefarious reasons.

[pam]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

What distinguishes an anti-Mormon from a non-Mormon critic? Is there a difference?

Intent to cause harm.

I think I agree. But we should probably define "harm".

For example, If I make an argument about some issue in the church, and someone who is a member decides I'm right and leaves the church, (or becomes critical themselves, or whatever) have I caused "harm"?

This is, I feel, opposed to the likes of "Saints Alive" who intentionally distort LDS teachings and practices for their own nefarious reasons.

I personally think is goes back to that word intent. Was that your overall "intent" when making your argument? Just question not directed at you personally Jason.

[Annabelli]

Bullying someone in Church is quite different from being an anti-mormon whose direct intent is to destroy the LDS Church.

[StrawberryFields]

Bullying someone in Church is quite different from being an anti-mormon whose direct intent is to destroy the LDS Church.

Bullying someone at church is better?

[jaguarangel]

<div class='quotemain'>

The title of this thread is pretty clear, and I think explains the sentiments of many LDS I've encountered in my short lifetime.

I guess the question remains, Can non and former LDS be critical of the LDS church, and not be considered anti-Mormon at the same time?

What distinguishes an anti-Mormon from a non-Mormon critic? Is there a difference?

For myself, I see a lot of good things about Mormonism that really benefit the membership. I can say that I've taken quite a few experiences from Mormonism that have and will continue to benefit me throughout my life. Yet I still point out what I see as shortcomings and failings in the religion as I suppose I hope to improve it for those who belong and for the next generation that comes along. Is that wrong?

Thoughts?

Depends, are you derogatory towards the church? Do you encourage those questioning their faith to leave rather than read and pray? Do you encourage behaviour among mormons unbecoming of a Latter-Day Saint? If you were a minister, would you support someone who wishes to join the LDS Church even if they were leaving your own congregation? What if it was an entire family or even half of your flock?

It is possible to be critical without being anti-mormon, but I have met few who are able to do so.

Great question topic and great answer here!

I guess you have to ask yourself the question: why would they care what I say? If I were to go to Rome and meet with Pope Benedict, and point out to him that celebate priests were wrong, and that I felt that women ought to hold the PH, do you honestly think he'd listen? I sincerely doubt it. I'd be pepper on fly poop to him, because I don't have a dog in the fight. And I think that is really what it comes down to.

There are too many people in the world today that are busybodies, trying to fix everything to match what they think it should be, even if it doesn't affect them (I'm not poking at you Jason, just making an observation). Homosexual marriage is wrong because it affects an institution; two men that want to have sex behind closed doors is none of my business and I wouldn't insist that they be celebate so that I wouldn't be offended. Tobacco is harmful to you and I believe you shouldn't smoke, but what right do I have to state you can't smoke in your home or car?

I take it more along the lines of Satan's plan of coercion, force people to do what I believe to be right instead of them changing to be more Christlike from within.

BY said it very well when he stated that we shouldn't worry about other people's faults but concentrate on our own and let them handle their own follies. The world would be a much better place if everyone would just mind their own darn business and make themselves the best they could be.

Why, it'd be the death of the Democratic party!

Well said, sixpack. It's the old mote and beam thing.

Who's business is it if another's faith is in error? Nobody's and everybody's. In the book co-written by an LDS professor and an evangelical one (Robinson & Blomberg), How Wide the Divide?, for all their reconciling of some erroneous and inflammatory rhetoric with truth, their join end-conclusion is that LDS will continue to proselytize evangelicals and evangelicals will return the favor. So long as everyone is respectful "begging to differ," could be seen as a sign of caring, rather than antagonism.

Wonderful answers chaplain! I love to respect others' beliefs and learn from them, too. We are all children of God.

[Annabelli]

<div class='quotemain'>

Bullying someone in Church is quite different from being an anti-mormon whose direct intent is to destroy the LDS Church.

Bullying someone at church is better?

I did not say it was better.....I said it was a different issue and was not an act of anti-mormon.

Bullying is terrible.

[Laureltree]

The title of this thread is pretty clear, and I think explains the sentiments of many LDS I've encountered in my short lifetime.

I guess the question remains, Can non and former LDS be critical of the LDS church, and not be considered anti-Mormon at the same time?

What distinguishes an anti-Mormon from a non-Mormon critic? Is there a difference?

For myself, I see a lot of good things about Mormonism that really benefit the membership. I can say that I've taken quite a few experiences from Mormonism that have and will continue to benefit me throughout my life. Yet I still point out what I see as shortcomings and failings in the religion as I suppose I hope to improve it for those who belong and for the next generation that comes along. Is that wrong?

Thoughts?

Jason, I like and respected what you have said.. I myself have never thought of you as antimormon...Anti to me is someone who bashes just to bash....no real purpose or intent other than to hurt others. I can respect a persons difference of opinion, but not when they are out to just hurt people...

[prisonchaplain]

NEWS FLASH!"Bashing just to bash," is not anti-LDS behavior. It is middle school behavior.

[Doctor Steuss]

These six types of “anti-Mormons” are taken from "Six Anti-Mormonisms", an old blog over at the “Blogernacle,” Common Consent. I think that ultimately, a true “anti-Mormon” (i.e. someone deserving for the polarized [and, let’s be honest; dismissive]) label fall within the last three categories of Public Policy Anti-Mormons, Circus Sideshow Anti-Mormons, and Anti-Mormons of Physical Persecution. Of course, the degree of one's convictions within a given category also contributes to whether or not one is deserving of the blanket classification of “anti-Mormon.” Some that take an overly militant stance within another category might also merit the title. The term might be over used (I know that I personally use it on occasions when it probably isn’t warranted). As a side note, I find it telling of how Mormons are viewed as a whole that true “anti-Mormons” (those that have specific "ministries" and/or protest LDS events) are much more accepted and are less prone to denunciations within society than anti-Semites or other bigoted xenophobic or racist individuals.

Interestingly (unfortunately I don’t have the source on hand), I once read a little advertisement in an old (mid 1800s) Missouri newspaper announcing a local “anti-Mormon meeting.” There was a time when those opposed to the church and those who persecuted the LDS readily took upon themselves the label (and quite possibly coined it, much like the nomenclature of “Mormon”).

• Anti-Mormons of Private Conviction. Individuals who quietly believe, in their own hearts and minds, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not God’s only true and living church have committed themselves to opposition to one central tenet of Mormonism. As such, these individuals stand against the Mormon movement and therefore meet the basic definition of “anti-Mormonism.” On the other hand, anti-Mormons of private conviction are not guilty of any act that hurts the church’s missionary efforts, retention rates, or public reputation in any way. It seems likely that almost all non-Mormons who know anything about Mormonism are anti-Mormons of private conviction. Some members of the church may be, as well.

• Anti-Mormons of Theological Conscience. Individuals who have a deep commitment to another theological system, and who seek to rebut Mormon theological claims from the perspective of that system. These people are not opponents of the Mormon church as an organization or of the Mormons as a people; rather, they object to what they see as distortions or errors in Mormon theology. Because they publicly stand against specific Mormon religious ideas, these individuals also clearly meet the definition of “anti-Mormonism.” Yet anti-Mormons of theological conscience have exact parallels among Mormon leadership and rank-and-file. Every time a Mormon talk or lesson argues against trinitarian conceptions of God, or example, or the idea of a closed scriptural canon, that talk or lesson is engaged in a behavior that is exactly as offensive as anti-Mormonism of theological conscience. Most committed believers in other religions can be brought to play the role of anti-Mormon of theological conscience through interaction with Mormons.

• Anti-Mormons of Historical Conscience. Individuals who have developed and discussed in public a firm intellectual conviction, on the basis of historical evidence, that Mormon truth claims are not correct. Such individuals sometimes come to believe that the leaders of the Mormon church must know the same evidence that they know, and therefore suppose that our leaders are lying when they bear testimony regarding the church’s divine mission. In opposing the church’s official representation of itself and its history, anti-Mormons of historical conscience clearly meet the definition discussed above. Once again, exact parallels exist within Mormonism, including James E. Talmage’s book The Great Apostasy, the introductory anecdote of Le Grand Richards’ A Marvelous Work and a Wonder (which rules Protestantism out as a group of religions because of concerns about the Reformation), and so forth. It is perhaps worth noting that certain faithful Mormon historians may be seen by some as having crossed into this category by publishing works that contradict official interpretations of Mormon history. Examples might include Juanita Brooks for her work on the Mountain Meadows Massacre; Richard Bushman, Richard S. Van Wagoner, and Steven Walker for their early acknowledgment of Joseph Smith’s treasure-digging and treasure-seer activities, and so forth.

• Public Policy Anti-Mormons. Individuals who argue against Mormon political power, rather than Mormon religious influence. Such people were, in the 19th century, motivated by the clear evidence that Mormons violated mainstream American values regarding the family through the practice of polygamy and that Mormons lived under a theocratic political system. In the 20th and 21st centuries, such concerns in the US often focus instead on the fact that Mormons believe in a church leader who claims to receive binding revelation for members — and the possibility that the head of the Mormon church might control the political actions of Mormons serving in political office. Such attitudes reflect a specific form of rejection of Mormonism as a culture and of Mormons as individuals; hence, it meets the definition of anti-Mormonism. Public policy anti-Mormons are common in American society; surveys suggest that more than 40 percent of Americans would hesitate to vote for a Mormon presidential candidate. However, parallel sentiments are common among Mormons, as well; how many Mormons would be willing to vote for an openly atheistic or Muslim presidential candidate?

• Circus Sideshow Anti-Mormons. These are anti-Mormons whose public rhetoric and behavior is driven by such strong motives that debate is not limited to genuine points of divergence with respect to theology, history, or public policy. Circus sideshow anti-Mormons will adopt any criticism, or employ any tactic, to score points against the Mormon antagonist. Because of the shifting nature of the intellectual attack, it is often difficult or impossible to identify the motives or underlying convictions behind the individual’s engagement with Mormonism. Rumor, gossip, and fantasy are all useful tools for public debate. Circus sideshow anti-Mormons do not merely commit mistakes in their debates (after all, everyone does that). Instead, they adopt tactics of the most blatant invention, speaking without cogent sources or recognizable evidence. In their headlong rush to damage the LDS church, such people clearly meet the definition of anti-Mormonism. However, a warning is needed: church members may sometimes mistake individuals who actually belong to one of the other categories of anti-Mormonism for circus sideshow anti-Mormons if they aren’t fully informed about the more challenging aspects of Mormon historical evidence.

• Anti-Mormons of Physical Persecution. Individuals and groups who go beyond rhetoric (public or private) to acts that physically damage the livelihoods or persons of Mormons. These people fully embody the definition of anti-Mormonism; their opposition to the Mormon church extends to the point of harming specific Mormons. The classic examples of anti-Mormons of physical persecution are the mobs of 19th-century Missouri and Illinois. Arguably, US federal policy during the polygamy period may also have fit within this category. During the 20th and 21st centuries, such anti-Mormons are quite uncommon in the US. Instead, this kind of anti-Mormonism has largely been represented by third-world guerrilla groups such as Peru’s Shining Path, who attack Mormons as symbols of US imperialism. There seem to be relatively few analogues to this form of anti-Mormonism within the Mormon community. The clearest and most famous exceptions would by the Mountain Meadows Massacre killers, although the Danites in Missouri may also fit in this category.

[Dror]

Well, I'm an active member of the Church, but have not given up using my ability of critical reasoning. I recognize, and frequently point out, that the Church has its shortcomings, but I don't think people think of me as an anti-Mormon. Maybe it's because I'm a member?

Dror

[Jason]

Jason, I like and respected what you have said.. I myself have never thought of you as antimormon...Anti to me is someone who bashes just to bash....no real purpose or intent other than to hurt others. I can respect a persons difference of opinion, but not when they are out to just hurt people...

Thanks Laurel. Haven't seen you around lately. How have you been?

[Moksha]

Well, I'm an active member of the Church, but have not given up using my ability of critical reasoning. I recognize, and frequently point out, that the Church has its shortcomings, but I don't think people think of me as an anti-Mormon. Maybe it's because I'm a member?

Dror

Some members insist on absolute unquestioning obedience or else you can be labeled as contentious. It is nice to have the internet as an outlet for expression of disagreement, is it not? I could never express myself the same way in Church.

[CrimsonKairos]

I guess I see "the Church" as inseparably connected to him whose it is: Jesus Christ.

Hence when someone criticizes "the Church" I see it as criticism of Jesus.

Now criticism of men and women in "the Church" is different, though rarely useful or efficacious.

The doctrines, ordinances and priesthood of the LDS Church are---to me---handed down by Christ. Hence, any criticism of them is tantamount to trying to pluck a "mote" from Christ's eye.

But in answer to your original question, Jason, yeah someone can disagree with the Church's teachings and not be anti-mormon. I don't consider you to be an anti, though there have been two or three times I can think of when you're having a mood (which we all do) and you can be a bit more acerbic in your objections than I'd prefer. Overall, you're a cool guy. B)

[StrawberryFields]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Bullying someone in Church is quite different from being an anti-mormon whose direct intent is to destroy the LDS Church.

Bullying someone at church is better?

I did not say it was better.....I said it was a different issue and was not an act of anti-mormon.

Bullying is terrible.

Okay thanks for the clarification. :)

Just as a side note. Bulling people at church will do as much, if not more damage than an anti-mormon.

[MadHatter]

The title of this thread is pretty clear, and I think explains the sentiments of many LDS I've encountered in my short lifetime.

I guess the question remains, Can non and former LDS be critical of the LDS church, and not be considered anti-Mormon at the same time?

What distinguishes an anti-Mormon from a non-Mormon critic? Is there a difference?

For myself, I see a lot of good things about Mormonism that really benefit the membership. I can say that I've taken quite a few experiences from Mormonism that have and will continue to benefit me throughout my life. Yet I still point out what I see as shortcomings and failings in the religion as I suppose I hope to improve it for those who belong and for the next generation that comes along. Is that wrong?

Thoughts?

I'ts unfortunate that you see that. members of the church tend to be very "clicky" with thier beliefs and tend to alienate those around them who are not LDS. This is not a good site to see.

It is hard as LDS members to be open minded enough to discuss things with peopel of other faiths and religions.

I was critical of LDS members when i went inactive in the church, I wasn't Anti-mormon at all, but i just alienated myself from the church.

Anti-Mormon people tend to be destructive with thier speech, they twist thigns and pervert words in thier mind and do everything they can to prove the LDS Church wrong.

Every religion has shortcomings, this is the weakness of flesh. i wouldn't point out the weaknesses of a religion without pointing out the weaknesses of my own. Improving things is always good, definitely.

[Laureltree]

<div class='quotemain'>

Jason, I like and respected what you have said.. I myself have never thought of you as antimormon...Anti to me is someone who bashes just to bash....no real purpose or intent other than to hurt others. I can respect a persons difference of opinion, but not when they are out to just hurt people...

Thanks Laurel. Haven't seen you around lately. How have you been?

good just working and going to school