What's "Anti-Mormon" to you?


Madam_Mim
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello!

I know that members of the Church should stay away from anything that's considered to be Anti-Mormon. But what IS Anti-Mormon to you? 


I get it that lies to make the Church look bad would be obviously Anti-Mormon and you shouldn't waste your time bothering with it.
But what about things that are just critical arguments about the Church? Is it ok to ask a member of the Church about a certain topic that seems problematic to me, or would I be considered to be Anti-Mormon? 
And what about claims that are true? Can the truth be anti-mormon? 
I've read some old threads on here, so I'm aware that many of you know of some difficulties about the Church's history, certain things about Joseph Smith etc., so I'm especially curious to know how you view this. When did you decide to actually deal with these issues and not just ignore them like "lalala I don't want to hear this!"? And did you feel "bad" for even reading/listening to it? (Btw: I know many of you don't view these issues about Church's history etc. as problematic - I'm just saying most people usually don't even want to investigate these topics)

Just in case you're wondering why I'm asking all of this:
I'd love to talk about the Church with members but I'm always unsure what I'm allowed to say and what not. I don't want to hurt anybody but if I can't mention or ask anything that seems problematic to me, that's not really a conversation. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this day of internet statements and ideas it can be very hard for someone trying to find out about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  There are a LOT of angry people out there that repeat information that has no real basis.  They will claim knowledge, but their knowledge simply comes from others who got their information from nefarious areas.

Anti-Mormon information is typically information that is trying to destroy the Church in whatever way it can possibly do so.  It will take some true information, insert half truths, and then proceed to claim that it is the truth.  Or, it will flat out lie about something and proclaim it as fact.  Obviously, when someone spouts such things and tries to debate about such "facts" when in truth it is merely insults to try to deride the Church, many members get offended.

The problem, then, is that when faced with these things people have no way of checking the actual reality of such, or the context in which those ideas were expressed or completed.  Occasionally this will lead to hypocritical ideas.

A prime example is DNA.  DNA experiments were done initially via a BYU study to determine if the Native Americans were related to the Jews.  The results did not show this.  The SAMPLE size on the otherhand was extremely small.  DNA testing was also not as accurate (and there are still many problems, it is NOT half as accurate as people think it is) at that time.  Even with other studies it still is questionable on how accurate the results are due to a lack of Native American DNA to compare it too, especially in regards to certain areas of the Americas.  Thus far the indications are that the Native Americans do not have the same roots as Jewish People with the markers that we have assigned them.

We do NOT know all the markers that would be for all the tribes of Israel.   The science behind it is not complete enough to map out the entire DNA history of mankind at this point.  We may reach it at some point in the future.  At this time we do not have any genetic evidence that the Native Americans came from Israel, but that is using our current information that we possess.

However, Anti-Mormons will leap onto this idea and treat science as perfect.  They latch on and will say that this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Native Americans can not be from the Israel (which means that they are not from the Tribe of Manasseh of whom we really don't have the genetic information for ironically).

At the same time, they will refute OTHER DNA information and try to deny it.  They claim that Joseph Smith married many woman and had intimate relations with them.  We KNOW that Joseph Smith could have children and actually had several.  In such a situation as they describe, with as many woman as they imply, and knowing that the woman later also had children from other men (sometimes very abundantly), it would imply that if Joseph Smith did as they claim he did, there should be children.  This means that somewhere there should be someone with Joseph Smith's DNA related to at least ONE of these woman.

Thus far, we have not found any that have this.  The DNA shows thus far shows no connection.  This would imply the exact opposite of what they claim about Joseph Smith (which is interesting).  Once again, this does not prove that he did NOT have intimate relations, but thus far there is no physical EVIDENCE of it.

However, this is glossed over, tossed out, or ignored.  There have been DNA tests done and they have shown (thus far) that those claiming this lineage were incorrect (from what I've read about it so far).

This is a prime example of how Anti-Mormon information works.  They will use what they feel will prove their point even to the point of exaggeration, while at the same time tossing out anything that works against their point of view.

Obviously, they would claim the same thing about members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

You need to recognize and see the agenda behind what each group is stating.  Anti-Mormons usually have one purpose, the destruction of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  It is similar, if you were an American, to listening to those who are Anti-American and trying to know how much of what they say is true, and how much they are saying just to tear America down.  A LOT of it is rhetoric and biased argument.  The same could be said of us (Those who are members of the Church), we are saying things that support our beliefs and the what we feel is true. 

If you have questions about things, I think you could ask about them here, but do NOT try to go about being aggressively destructive.  Be respectful.

If you were to go to a Forum about India and wanted to be respectful, you would not try to push an opinion that was derogatory or racist towards Indians (those from India).  You would not try to go about tearing down the Hindu religion based upon what you heard from those who hate Hindus.  You would not go about trying to bash Hindus, claim ideas that were hostile to Hindus, or otherwise. 

The same goes for here (in my opinion).  Ask away, but do not try to act like ideas that are hostile to Members of the Church of Jesus Christ are respectful, or that those that blindly attack the Church are valid opinions.  Furthermore, if someone actually gives you the context (for example, most of the items that Anti-Mormons use have been around for almost two hundred years at this point, these are NOT NEW arguments at all.  The difference is that people today do not, or many times, CANNOT look at the original source or know the context in which those arguments for anti-Mormonism were launched originally in the 19th century) don't try to ignore that or simply take the side of those who are trying to destroy US (the members of the Church).

I'd say, if you remain respectful and ARE respectful (and many who come here asking about these things are NOT) towards the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the members you can ask your questions. 

(One thing I would ask from you if you do pursue such things is that if I ask for a source, you provide it.  As a historian, I will be looking for primary sources.  These are sources from people who were actually there and talked about it.  NORMALLY the closer the statement is to the event, the more reliable.  (for example, a statement that talks about translation of the Book of Mormon that came from Oliver Cowdery in 1832 is going to be more reliable than a statement from Martin Harris in 1952 or when he was trying to use his statements to bolster up someone that was working against the Church at the time).  I do NOT want the hearsay of an anti-Mormon article or some tertiary source that makes me do the research into it's origins or validity in and of itself.)

So once again, I'd say welcome, and you are free to ask your questions as long as you remain respectful and respect the views that others put forth.  If we seem a little hesitant it is because there are MANY who come under the guise of friendship who say they simply want to ask these questions, but quickly turn out to be people who want to attack, insult, and belittle the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and any who are members of it.  Try to avoid doing such things (as that's a quick way to get banned) by being respectful of our beliefs, faith, and thoughts and we will probably try to answer your questions to the best of our abilities from our viewpoint (which obviously will be slanted towards our opinions and thoughts).

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply!

Oh don't worry, I'm not here to attack anyone, and thanks to the search option I already found much information about many controversial topics. So I'm not going to start threads like "so what about polygamy" or stuff like that. :D I'm more interested in current topics anyway instead of the Church's history. 

I like to see what both sides have to say, so I often read lds-reddit but also ex-mormon reddit. As some sort of outside spectator (I'm not religious at all) it's kind of fascinating how different people can talk about the same topic - just as you mentioned. 

And I absolutely understand that people might get defensive if they think someone's trying to mock something that's so important to them. 

But I don't think every Ex-LDS-member is automatically Antimormon when they say something critical about the church. I understand the benefits this belief offers to people but I can also relate to some of the criticism. For me it's easy to just form my own opinion, but I don't know if most members of the Church would be willing to for example watch a video by a former member or if they would right away refuse to watch it even though it might make some valid points. 

Maybe I'm just a little paranoid out of fear that - because I'm an atheist - a believer might always assume that I have base motives when I'm asking questions. That's why I'm so careful not to step on anyone's toes. 

Just to explain what I mean: A few weeks ago when Pres. Nelson suggested the social media fast (and I know a social media fast is harmless) I was wondering if members would also follow him if he suggested something they find absolutely wrong. Would they say "he might be the prophet, but this is not ok - I'm not going to do this" or would they still do it?

I would have loved to talk about this with members of the church but I just didn't dare to ask. Or when I find interesting links on the internet I'm not sure which ones are ok to share and which aren't. For example: Would it have been offensive to send a church-member a link about the bishop-interviews-debate and ask for their opinion? Haha I feel ridiculous writing this because in general I have no problem discussing stuff with other people but religion just seems to be such a touchy subject. 

 

Oh, I have to throw in another question:

Is Mormonstories on youtube considered "Anti-Mormon" in general? Because I remember a very interesting episode with a current member who wasn't mocking the Church at all and I'm wondering if it's ok for members to watch that or if that's also a no-no? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

Hello!

I know that members of the Church should stay away from anything that's considered to be Anti-Mormon. But what IS Anti-Mormon to you? 


I get it that lies to make the Church look bad would be obviously Anti-Mormon and you shouldn't waste your time bothering with it.
But what about things that are just critical arguments about the Church? Is it ok to ask a member of the Church about a certain topic that seems problematic to me, or would I be considered to be Anti-Mormon? 
And what about claims that are true? Can the truth be anti-mormon? 
I've read some old threads on here, so I'm aware that many of you know of some difficulties about the Church's history, certain things about Joseph Smith etc., so I'm especially curious to know how you view this. When did you decide to actually deal with these issues and not just ignore them like "lalala I don't want to hear this!"? And did you feel "bad" for even reading/listening to it? (Btw: I know many of you don't view these issues about Church's history etc. as problematic - I'm just saying most people usually don't even want to investigate these topics)

Just in case you're wondering why I'm asking all of this:
I'd love to talk about the Church with members but I'm always unsure what I'm allowed to say and what not. I don't want to hurt anybody but if I can't mention or ask anything that seems problematic to me, that's not really a conversation. 
 

For me personally, anti-Mormon stems from intent.  Are you faithful?   Do you desire to be faithful?   Are you approaching Saints with issues hoping they can be resolved?  If the answer to those questions is "yes", then I personally wouldn't find it to be anti-Mormon at all.  I hope there never comes a day that we are not able to lean on stronger members for support. 

On the other hand, do you make no attempt to be faithful or keep your covenants?  Do you call into question the teachings of the church and their authority from Heavenly Father?   Do you publicly announce doctrine that runs counter to church teachings (or is borderline) then defend it and try to sway people to your opinion?  Do you lead people astray?  That behavior I find to be anti-Mormon.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

 

Just to explain what I mean: A few weeks ago when Pres. Nelson suggested the social media fast (and I know a social media fast is harmless) I was wondering if members would also follow him if he suggested something they find absolutely wrong. Would they say "he might be the prophet, but this is not ok - I'm not going to do this" or would they still do it?

 

Oh, I have to throw in another question:

Is Mormonstories on youtube considered "Anti-Mormon" in general? Because I remember a very interesting episode with a current member who wasn't mocking the Church at all and I'm wondering if it's ok for members to watch that or if that's also a no-no? 

I hate "what if" scenarios because there is no easy answer to an issue that will never arise.  The Prophet wouldn't ask us to do something that is horribly wrong.  If we agree to play that game using your scenario, we'd have to admit that we either wouldn't follow the Prophet or that we would commit a horrible act.  This scenario wouldn't arise.  

I don't view Mormon Stories so I can't answer about the content, but I believe the host was excommunicated.   That alone would keep me away. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

Is Mormonstories on youtube considered "Anti-Mormon" in general? Because I remember a very interesting episode with a current member who wasn't mocking the Church at all and I'm wondering if it's ok for members to watch that or if that's also a no-no? 

MormonStories is a joke. The host has been excommunicated and so has half of his guest speakers. They are constantly patronizing and criticizing the leaders of the church and wanting some sort of reformation. To be honest, most online communities are like this. A Thoughtfulness Faith, MormonMatters, and many other online sources. 

I would consider MormonStories a prime example of “wolf in sheep’s clothing”. They say they love the church and only want the best for it, but everything they teach and talk about is  completely against what the church teaches (and they do it under the banner of “love”).

4 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

Hello!

I know that members of the Church should stay away from anything that's considered to be Anti-Mormon. But what IS Anti-Mormon to you? 


I get it that lies to make the Church look bad would be obviously Anti-Mormon and you shouldn't waste your time bothering with it.
But what about things that are just critical arguments about the Church? Is it ok to ask a member of the Church about a certain topic that seems problematic to me, or would I be considered to be Anti-Mormon? 
And what about claims that are true? Can the truth be anti-mormon? 
I've read some old threads on here, so I'm aware that many of you know of some difficulties about the Church's history, certain things about Joseph Smith etc., so I'm especially curious to know how you view this. When did you decide to actually deal with these issues and not just ignore them like "lalala I don't want to hear this!"? And did you feel "bad" for even reading/listening to it? (Btw: I know many of you don't view these issues about Church's history etc. as problematic - I'm just saying most people usually don't even want to investigate these topics)

Just in case you're wondering why I'm asking all of this:
I'd love to talk about the Church with members but I'm always unsure what I'm allowed to say and what not. I don't want to hurt anybody but if I can't mention or ask anything that seems problematic to me, that's not really a conversation. 
 

I absolutely love critical thought and honest questioning. Not everyone needs it or wants it, but for those who naturally think to themselves “well that is convenient” when they learn Joseph Smith Jr was the only one to physically see and touch the plates, and then later have the plates taken up to heaven, honest and critical thought is important.

Honest intellectual questioning becomes anti as soon as you reject plausible explanations and start arguing in the side of “this is dumb and doesn’t make sense”.

Jeremy Runnells, a popular anti-Mormon, is a great example of this. He had a series of questions he “wanted answered”. Many of those questions were fantastic! But what his problem was was he would reject the answers given to him from leaders or from the Church's Essays because they didn’t satisfy his own requirements for a good answer. He openly states he loves the church and wants to be a faithful member, but rejects to believe and teach basic principles and doctrines because he doesn’t like the answers to his questions.

All questions of the church can be easily answered with “Orthodox” views. A common stance many of these antis (or as they call themselves “unorthodox”) is that they believe the traditional or orthodox Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in sufficient and inferior to what God wants. That God is unhappy with the church today and the leaders today are making grave mistakes that need to be repented of. They may not use those words, but that is what they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
4 minutes ago, Fether said:

I absolutely love critical thought and honest questioning.

Same here! To me, intent is what matters. If you aren't going to listen to the answer that LDS give and are just here to critique the church (Like the people you mentioned) than you are anti-Mormon. If you actually take the time to listen to the answer (you don't have to agree, just listen) than you aren't anti-Mormon. 

The issue is that we don't know someones intent.We can guess, but unless you can read minds, it's very difficult. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

I know that members of the Church should stay away from anything that's considered to be Anti-Mormon. But what IS Anti-Mormon to you? 

Intent: 

  • Insult.
  • Fight.
  • Superiority.
  • Deception.
  • Characterization.

It is entirely possible to only say true things while having these intentions.  One can even tell all true statements while still couching it with the intent to deceive.  But I have never seen an entire exposition without some false statements or assumptions.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Madam_Mim

A fantastic example of an online group that discusses difficult church topics in a healthy manner is “FAIRmormon”. They have a website, YouTube channel, podcasts and a yearly conference. They are so thorough in their studies and really a one stop shop for all your difficult questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once during a crisis of faith, I haunted a few of those "Mormons of Thought" type boards. The bitterness from those claiming to be faithful members of the church was by itself enough to send me running in another direction. I wanted answers and information, not to be called to protest or "change the church for the better from within". 

I know it's probably unfair and unloving, but if you're at the point of wanting a reformation, start your own church.

As to the OP, a good debate can be fun and enlightening. But don't come with a hidden agenda. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Once during a crisis of faith, I haunted a few of those "Mormons of Thought" type boards. The bitterness from those claiming to be faithful members of the church was by itself enough to send me running in another direction. I wanted answers and information, not to be called to protest or "change the church for the better from within". 

This touches upon something I was trying to explain in another thread.  You do it better.  Thank you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

Hello!

I know that members of the Church should stay away from anything that's considered to be Anti-Mormon. But what IS Anti-Mormon to you? 


I get it that lies to make the Church look bad would be obviously Anti-Mormon and you shouldn't waste your time bothering with it.
But what about things that are just critical arguments about the Church? Is it ok to ask a member of the Church about a certain topic that seems problematic to me, or would I be considered to be Anti-Mormon? 
And what about claims that are true? Can the truth be anti-mormon? 
I've read some old threads on here, so I'm aware that many of you know of some difficulties about the Church's history, certain things about Joseph Smith etc., so I'm especially curious to know how you view this. When did you decide to actually deal with these issues and not just ignore them like "lalala I don't want to hear this!"? And did you feel "bad" for even reading/listening to it? (Btw: I know many of you don't view these issues about Church's history etc. as problematic - I'm just saying most people usually don't even want to investigate these topics)

Just in case you're wondering why I'm asking all of this:
I'd love to talk about the Church with members but I'm always unsure what I'm allowed to say and what not. I don't want to hurt anybody but if I can't mention or ask anything that seems problematic to me, that's not really a conversation. 
 

"Anti" is an attitude. I think one can discuss any topic. It's the attitude and the intent that makes it "anti". What's the objective? Learning? Faith? Understanding? Sustaining and upholding God's works, ways, and wills in all humility? Or is the intent personal gratification, appealing to the carnal nature, one's own will and ways, and putting aside faith in favor of pride?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fether said:

Jeremy Runnells, ...had a series of questions... Many ...were fantastic!

If you consider dated, age-old, tired, answered-a-thousand-times-already, anti-mormon-go-to-without thought-or-understanding questions "fantastic"...then...sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

"Anti" is an attitude. I think one can discuss any topic. It's the attitude and the intent that makes it "anti". What's the objective? ..

This is true.  As an unlikely example, I'll point to a former member with whom I do business.  Although he left the Church (formally resigned) many years ago, he has really made every effort to NOT be bitter about the Church.  He and I have had many discussions about EVERYthing.  Most of the well known controversial topics as well as some obscure ones.  We do it for mutual enlightenment.  Neither of us is under the delusion that we're going to convert the other.

It is however a type of crucible to determine just what arguments are actual facts vs. errors, characterizations, errors, assumptions, errors, perspective, errors, omissions, and errors.

Every once in a while, his "anti" attitude does show itself.  But he's professional enough and polite enough to keep it under control.

We also know when it's time to call it.  That is, we've both said all we can say.  And we've pointed out all we can point out.  In the end, we both have the ability to say, I think we're done talking about this.  And we still do business professionally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If you consider dated, age-old, tired, answered-a-thousand-times-already, anti-mormon-go-to-without thought-or-understanding questions "fantastic"...then...sure.

There were quite a few questions I had never heard before in his list. I personally enjoyed reading them. His tone was aragant and condescending, his story was utter hogwash, but he had some pretty good questions in his mix of questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fether said:

...but he had some pretty good questions in his mix of questions.

There's no such thing as a person who is all evil or all good.  He's still a child of God.  He's a mortal man who has convinced himself that this path is the correct one. So, he's going to come up with SOME good questions.  Doesn't mean we should praise him for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

I know that members of the Church should stay away from anything that's considered to be Anti-Mormon. But what IS Anti-Mormon to you? 


Just in case you're wondering why I'm asking all of this:
I'd love to talk about the Church with members but I'm always unsure what I'm allowed to say and what not. I don't want to hurt anybody but if I can't mention or ask anything that seems problematic to me, that's not really a conversation. 

Someone had recently asked for guidelines on "Bridging the gap".  Here was my response.

The first thing is to get other denominations to stop spewing out insults at us.  I think it would be a great place to start. 
I've personally heard all of the following applied to us just in common discourse. 

Cult
Crabgrass
Parasites
Children of Satan
Damned
Unbelievers

What names have we called other denominations? 

Apostate  - We tend not to use this anymore.  So, we've stopped unless pressed to do so on a very logical and definitional level.  And on a definitional level, we'd have to admit that you are, just as you'd admit that we are.  But in common discourse, we never say this.
Sectarians - This is a fairly logical dictionary word that isn't meant to be insulting.  But we have to have a concise word to describe "other Christian denominations."  And to be honest, not a lot of Saints use this word.  I do.  If you can come up with another word to replace it, I'm all ears.  We can say "Christian."  But since we consider ourselves Christians, then that isn't useful.
Evangelicals - Obviously a subset.  And it is a self-applied monikker.  So, not insulting.

That's really all I can think of that Latter-day Saints commonly use to describe other Christian faiths.

Second, stop with the false statements, descriptions, and characterizations.

If others want to bring up actual facts that may cast us in a bad light, that is one thing.  But when people just make things up and then spread it.  Then the vast majority of sectarians believe it and spread it further, this doesn't serve anyone.  It isn't true.  Yet many are perfectly content spreading this about "Those Damn Mormons" because it's God's work to lie about them. 

  ... That just don't make no sense.

To my knowledge we've never spread any lies about other denominations.  We have, like other sects do about us, find some beliefs incomprehensible to people of other faiths, and we discuss them as such.  But as far as I know, there has never been a wide-spread intent to spread a lie about others.

Third, Language.  We tend to use different terms to talk about similar concepts.  And we use the same words to talk about different concepts.  This difference in terminology can cause a lot of confusion.  But if we take the time to "learn each others' language" then that can greatly help the conversation.  I know personally of several beliefs that most will find unacceptable simply because of a difference in terminology.  But once we learn each others' language, then we find it is either exactly the same, or it is pretty darn close.

Fourth, Don't come LOOKING for a fight.  We have plenty of those.  It doesn't help anyone feel the Spirit of the Lord.

Fifth, I don't really know if we can completely bridge the gap because:

We stand apart.  No matter how much we try to reach out or find people on the other side who are trying to reach back, we are simply different.  There are some fundamental differences that we will never give up.  And we're simply not going to accept those fundamental things of each other.

The fact is that we are different faiths.  So, we have to be different.  If we all believed the same, then we'd all be the same faith.  But we are different faiths.  So, we will always have areas where we disagree about the way things actually are.  This is a definitional thing that we are not going to get across. 

Too many say the Trinity is the fundamental difference.  Well, we're just not going to get through that are we?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Fether said:

There were quite a few questions I had never heard before in his list.

Regardless, there wasn't a single question on his list that he came up with himself. He rehashed, regurgitated, and vomited it all up. I'm not convinced he's smart enough to have come up with any real questions on his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

I know that members of the Church should stay away from anything that's considered to be Anti-Mormon. But what IS Anti-Mormon to you? 

What an anti anything person IS: someone who spreads blind hatred by spewing out lies on a subject, even after they've been shown otherwise.  Often times these lies comes as 97% truth and spun with 3% falsehood to give the wrong picture (all the best lies are largely based in truth).  An anti person will also frequently conduct themselves in un-Christ-like manner and advocate others do likewise.   All-in-all, an anti anything person is leading people away from Christ in terms of information and behavior, and hence should be avoided.   

What an anti anything person is NOT: someone who disagrees and/or is critical of another's viewpoint, as long as they conduct themselves in a Christ-like manner.   I have no problem with people being critical of my beliefs (religious or political or social) in such a manner, and in fact welcome such dialogue to better flush our my own perspectives. 

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

But what about things that are just critical arguments about the Church? Is it ok to ask a member of the Church about a certain topic that seems problematic to me, or would I be considered to be Anti-Mormon? 

Totally welcome all critical questions!

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

And what about claims that are true? Can the truth be anti-mormon? 

100% truth is never anti anything, such is impossible.

The best lies are 97% truth and spun with 3% falsehood to give the wrong picture.

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

I've read some old threads on here, so I'm aware that many of you know of some difficulties about the Church's history, certain things about Joseph Smith etc., so I'm especially curious to know how you view this. When did you decide to actually deal with these issues and not just ignore them like "lalala I don't want to hear this!"? And did you feel "bad" for even reading/listening to it? (Btw: I know many of you don't view these issues about Church's history etc. as problematic - I'm just saying most people usually don't even want to investigate these topics)

I've never felt bad for learning more truth, not remotely.  Never do I shy away from such topics.  

8 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

Just in case you're wondering why I'm asking all of this:
I'd love to talk about the Church with members but I'm always unsure what I'm allowed to say and what not. I don't want to hurt anybody but if I can't mention or ask anything that seems problematic to me, that's not really a conversation. 

People are human.  Humans sometimes do weird or wrong things.  Forgiveness is always key.  If someone gets unnecessarily offended on something, we each should forgive.  If a person accidentally sticks their foot in their mouth, we should forgive them.    

You'll also find that some people are more comfortable and/or interested in talking about certain subjects than others.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Regardless, there wasn't a single question on his list that he came up with himself. He rehashed, regurgitated, and vomited it all up. I'm not convinced he's smart enough to have come up with any real questions on his own.

It’s an old high school debate trick, called “spread”:  you take advantage of time constraints, your audience’s limited patience, and your ability to talk/throw mud faster than the other guy can debunk it, knowing even as you make your argument that 90% of it is malarkey.  Then when the clock runs out you summarize by saying “I made 25 arguments and my opponent only engaged with five of them, dropping the other 20 issues. That’s because he clearly knows he’s in the wrong on them; ergo, my side is obviously superior.” 

As for anti-Mormonism generally:  it’s spiritual pornography, and like real pornography: I know it when I see it.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

I like to see what both sides have to say, so I often read lds-reddit but also ex-mormon reddit. As some sort of outside spectator (I'm not religious at all) it's kind of fascinating how different people can talk about the same topic - just as you mentioned. 

The ex-mormon readits are anti-Mormon toxic pits best be avoided like the plague they are.

That's not because every ex-mormon is anti at all.  But the culture of the ex-mormon readits are.    And mocking is always anti behavior.  

5 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

But I don't think every Ex-LDS-member is automatically Antimormon when they say something critical about the church. I understand the benefits this belief offers to people but I can also relate to some of the criticism.

100% agree with you there.  For example, my favorite aunt is ex-LDS.  She's still my favorite aunt, whom I call regularly for advise. 

5 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

Just to explain what I mean: A few weeks ago when Pres. Nelson suggested the social media fast (and I know a social media fast is harmless) I was wondering if members would also follow him if he suggested something they find absolutely wrong. Would they say "he might be the prophet, but this is not ok - I'm not going to do this" or would they still do it?

I would have loved to talk about this with members of the church but I just didn't dare to ask.

Honestly, I find such broad "what if" questions not very helpful.  There's a lot of things could go down, and we should also not forget a person's individual relationship with Christ and seeking Him for answers.  I know I have done so when I've found something troubling in the past. 

5 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

Is Mormonstories on youtube considered "Anti-Mormon" in general? Because I remember a very interesting episode with a current member who wasn't mocking the Church at all and I'm wondering if it's ok for members to watch that or if that's also a no-no? 

MormonStories is an anti joke.  That's not to say it can't have 97% truth, but the show's creator has blatant anti intentions and has hence been excommunicated for apostasy.  

Again, critical topics I totally welcome discussion.  But not using anti methods.  

 

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share