What's "Anti-Mormon" to you?

[Madam_Mim]

Oh wow, thanks for all the interesting replies! 

Reading them made me think about my intent when I want to talk about touchy subjects. 

When I learned about this religion, the more I read about it, the less sense it made to me. But it doesn't have to and it doesn't matter - it never crossed my mind to send my friend who's a believer a link saying "and you still believe this?" or something like that. I know how important her faith is for her and I would be a horrible friend to even try to ruin this.  Also it doesn't seem that interesting to talk about the Church's past when we both don't know what really happened and what didn't. So I'm definitely not trying to deconvert anybody when I'm asking questions.

 

BUT when it comes to current issues, I'm absolutely interested in having conversations and asking critical questions (I just hardly ever dare to  ). I once tried to explain it this way: When your friend supports a politician who has very radical views or holds a controversial speech, you would probably ask your friend why he/she supports that politician. So when a prophet says something that just seems wrong to me, of course I'd like to talk about this too and ask my friend if she agrees with him.  

Oh, another question:

Is Dan Reynold's documentary considered Anti-Mormon? I mean.. of course it's criticising the church but it doesn't seem to tell lies, does it? 

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

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

I was going to say, the only "bridge" to the gap is truth. It's not compromise or the like. It may "feel" like compromise sometimes, but that won't, ultimately, bridge that gap. Only truth will.

[The Folk Prophet]

42 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

What an anti anything person is NOT: someone who disagrees and/or is critical of another's viewpoint,

Technically to be anti is to be against. So anyone who is against is anti.

I don't buy into the civility-negates-anti idea. Civilly standing against something is still standing against something.

[Jane_Doe]

15 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

Oh wow, thanks for all the interesting replies! 

Reading them made me think about my intent when I want to talk about touchy subjects. 

When I learned about this religion, the more I read about it, the less sense it made to me. But it doesn't have to and it doesn't matter - it never crossed my mind to send my friend who's a believer a link saying "and you still believe this?" or something like that. I know how important her faith is for her and I would be a horrible friend to even try to ruin this.  Also it doesn't seem that interesting to talk about the Church's past when we both don't know what really happened and what didn't. So I'm definitely not trying to deconvert anybody when I'm asking questions.

*thumbs up here*

Intent is the big deal.  If something is sent with the intent of "and you STILL believe this load of hogwash", then that's mocking and not of Christ.  I applaud you if that's honestly not your intention.  

15 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

BUT when it comes to current issues, I'm absolutely interested in having conversations and asking critical questions (I just hardly ever dare to  ). I once tried to explain it this way: When your friend supports a politician who has very radical views or holds a controversial speech, you would probably ask your friend why he/she supports that politician. So when a prophet says something that just seems wrong to me, of course I'd like to talk about this too and ask my friend if she agrees with him.  

Again, it comes to intent.  Clarifying and solid conversations are good and welcomed.   Attitude of "and you STILL believe this load of hogwash" is mocking.  

15 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

Oh, another question:

Is Dan Reynold's documentary considered Anti-Mormon? I mean.. of course it's criticising the church but it doesn't seem to tell lies, does it? 

The best lies are 97% truth and 3% spun falsehood.  Dan Reynold's movie does a LOT of spinning has to not reflect the real intention/beliefs of the Church.  The LDS faith is not remotely saying "you must choose between loving your gay child and loving the church!".

 

[theplains]

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

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. 

Would I be considered an anti-Mormon when I say that the LDS Church is incorrect in teaching that Jesus Christ
is the first spirit child of heavenly parents who progressed into becoming a God when he reached a certain level
of intelligence?  

Thanks,
Jim

[Jane_Doe]

4 minutes ago, theplains said:

Would I be considered an anti-Mormon when I say that the LDS Church is incorrect in teaching that Jesus Christ
is the first spirit child of heavenly parents who progressed into becoming a God when he reached a certain level
of intelligence?  

Thanks,
Jim

Jim, you are a blatant anti-Mormon.  You continually use tactics that go against Christ's ways (such as you constant spinning of things) and your blatant goal is to lure people away from Christ and His Church.  Such is not remotely of Christ and only serves the devil.  

Edited December 9, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[theplains]

1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said:

Jim, you are a blatant anti-Mormon.  You continually use tactics that go against Christ's ways (such as you constant spinning of things) and your blatant goal is to lure people away from Christ and His Church.  Such is not remotely of Christ and only serves the devil.  

What I mentioned is taught in LDS Church manuals.

Jim

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, theplains said:

What I mentioned is taught in LDS Church manuals.

Jim

Once again:

Jim, you are a blatant anti-Mormon.  You continually use tactics that go against Christ's ways (such as you constant spinning of things) and your blatant goal is to lure people away from Christ and His Church.  Such is not remotely of Christ and only serves the devil.  

Ignoring this truth and my saying of it doesn't change your devilish/anti intentions and methods. 

Edited December 9, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Fether]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, he's going to come up with SOME good questions.  

Personally I don’t believe he came up with all those questions. I think maybe he had 2 questions tops and the rest he looked up.

[Guest MormonGator]

I think some converts (some, not all, some) struggle with this because they don't know the hot button issues. They might ask a question that sounds insulting/confrontational out of ignorance. Some thin skinned or angry LDS looking for an argument might mistake ignorance for being "anti".  
 

[Fether]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think some converts (some, not all, some) struggle with this because they don't know the hot button issues. They might ask a question that sounds insulting/confrontational out of ignorance. Some thin skinned or angry LDS looking for an argument might mistake ignorance for being "anti".  
 

I agree completely. I think we are especially susceptible of this on forums like this.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Fether said:

I agree completely. I think we are especially susceptible of this on forums like this.

Thanks bud. You (generic!) can't act obnoxious and abrasive then be shocked-shocked! at low conversion rates and empty seats on Sunday morning. 

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think some converts (some, not all, some) struggle with this because they don't know the hot button issues. They might ask a question that sounds insulting/confrontational out of ignorance. Some thin skinned or angry LDS looking for an argument might mistake ignorance for being "anti".  
 

Yes, and there's always that danger.  So we always want to err on the side of the presumption of innocence.

But (to paraphrase Jefferson) when a long train of abuses invariably pursuing the same design evinces a design to destroy rather than understand, it becomes obvious what their true motivations are.

Edited December 9, 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

What I mentioned is taught in LDS Church manuals.

Jim

Jim, just answer the following:

Did you come to this site looking for a fight or to "show the Mormons the error of their ways"?

If not, you need to change your tactics.

It doesn't matter what you post.  The subject matter isn't the problem.  It's your attitude.  And with that attitude, ANYTHING is anti-Mormon.  You could simply say "Good morning" and it would still be anti-Mormon because you're only saying it to pick a fight.

Your earlier post was a statement in the form of a question.  (<=== really big clue that you are an anti-mormon).  You don't want an answer.   (<==== really big clue you are an anti-Mormon).  You already know and you're only asking to start a fight.

Edited December 9, 2018 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Would I be considered an anti-Mormon when I say that the LDS Church is incorrect in teaching that Jesus Christ
is the first spirit child of heavenly parents who progressed into becoming a God when he reached a certain level
of intelligence?  

Thanks,
Jim

Would it be rude of me to just respond with a "duh"?

[Guest MormonGator]

19 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, and there's always that danger.  So we always want to err on the side of the presumption of innocence.

But (to paraphrase Jefferson) when a long train of abuses invariably pursuing the same design evinces a design to destroy rather than understand, it becomes obvious what their true motivations are.

Oh I agree. Sometimes it's obvious who is asking a sincere question and who is-like you said-trying to show those stupid Mormons the error of their ways. 

[The Folk Prophet]

58 minutes ago, Fether said:

Personally I don’t believe he came up with all those questions. I think maybe he had 2 questions tops and the rest he looked up.

He had no questions. He had a strong desire to embrace that which appeals to the carnal man. Accordingly he sought Satan and found exactly what he was looking for. 

[The Folk Prophet]

53 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, and there's always that danger.  So we always want to err on the side of the presumption of innocence.

But (to paraphrase Jefferson) when a long train of abuses invariably pursuing the same design evinces a design to destroy rather than understand, it becomes obvious what their true motivations are.

True seekers of Christ will find Him. 

Edited December 9, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

I think some converts (some, not all, some) struggle with this because they don't know the hot button issues. They might ask a question that sounds insulting/confrontational out of ignorance. Some thin skinned or angry LDS looking for an argument might mistake ignorance for being "anti".  
 

Totally agree.

For me, I always give someone the benefit of the doubt starting out.  The difference in intention (whether to learn or to smear) then comes out talking with them: learners we have a great conversation, anti's get frustrated I don't really believe in flying pigs.   

[Grunt]

5 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Totally agree.

For me, I always give someone the benefit of the doubt starting out.  The difference in intention (whether to learn or to smear) then comes out talking with them: learners we have a great conversation, anti's get frustrated I don't really believe in flying pigs.   

I asked a lot of crazy questions when I first came here.

[Jane_Doe]

Just now, Grunt said:

I asked a lot of crazy questions when I first came here.

And you always listened to the answers we gave and we have awesome conversations

[zil]

22 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I don't really believe in flying pigs

How about rolling pigs?

[lostinwater]

13 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

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.  

i don't know.  i take a very different view on MormonStories.  

When you leave - you leave a culture, a religion, a way of life, relationships - for whatever reason - and it is devastating.  Devastating.  And most people it's devastating for having absolutely no one around whom they can safely discuss their concerns.  Try bringing up polyandry in relief society, see how well it goes.  See if you are treated exactly the same way after doing it - especially if you don't accept the "answers" that make zero sense to you and feel utterly, blatantly, irreconcilably wrong.   

And here's the thing.  There is no reason your bringing up polyandry in relief society should go well.  No reason at all.  There is no reasonable expectation that someone should pat you on the back for coming and telling them things whose implications if true would totally disrupt their lives.  What should the member be expected to do?  To let every single person hurt by an organization of millions of members come in and have a platform through which they everlastingly rub the dirty laundry of the history in the faces of the members for hours on end?  Of course that's an unreasonable expectation.

But what is the person to do?  They were raised with this.  Lived it, breathed it, believed it right down to their bones.  And then things came along that ripped that whole thing right out of their souls.  And they are just supposed to stay silent after they were giving answers that feel trivializing?  Do what their friends/family suggest and double down and read the material that just reminds them of how wrong it all feels now?  Tell everyone that the answers they got make it all better when it just makes it worse?  Stuff the questions away and call that faith?  Most people try all that.  Most people try it for years.  Eats them alive.  And then they find something like MormonStories.  People who feel the same way.  Someone knows that it can't ever be the same - and isn't telling you that your knowing it can't isn't an indication of your being crazy or evil or deceived or unfaithful.  It's like water in a desert.   

i've listened to a *lot* of the MormonStories.  There are some where i think the attitudes are overly vindictive and accusatory.  But the vast majority, in my opinion at least, tell the stories of very authentic people who are reeling and trying to piece together a view of the world and God after theirs was shattered into tiny little pieces.  That said, it's not something i go around touting to every member i come in contact with.  

My parents - i don't want to destabilize how they feel about being members.  That would hurt them - because they are fine where they are.  And i have no interests in doing that.  But i'll happily share episodes with people who are confused and hurting.  Maybe the square answers they are trying to stick in a round hole should work.  All i know is that they don't, and aren't - and the person is self-destructing in the attempt to make them work.  And i tend to think that regardless of what the 'right' religion is - if there is such a thing - that it's made for people rather than people being made for religions.

As far as anti stuff - my impression is that anyone who asks a question, gets something that they are told is an answer but doesn't come close to resolving their concerns or confusion, and then continues to ask question about it and/or cite reasons why the answer provided is insufficient very quickly gets labeled as someone who is spewing anti propaganda - by virtue of their citing the reasons why the answer provided is not sufficient.  Are they?  Well, i guess that depends on how you see it.  Are missionaries spewing anti-Catholic propaganda, or anti-protestant propaganda when they go proselyting?  They don't think so.  But have you asked a pastor of one of these churches how they view our missionaries, and the message they are telling people?  Do the ends justify the means?  Even when demonstrably good people are in total disagreement about what the ends exactly are?

And it's really sad - because i get why people perceive the initial, confused plea for clarification as an attack on their faith, and why people making that plea interpret the response as a rejection.  And it's doubly sad because most of the time, what started out as a misconception very quickly becomes the reality of the relationship.  

i don't know if there are answers.  This Church tangles itself up in the most intimate relationships human beings have with one another, in how people view themselves and everything around them.  That's really, beautifully, wondrously good when it works, and entirely catastrophic when it doesn't.  

And @Jane_Doe - i only quoted you because you are the safest person to quote here.... not out of any anger or anything like that.  

Edited December 10, 2018 by lostinwater

[Grunt]

@lostinwater I'm sorry you have to deal with this.  I'm unfamiliar with your story but I'm unsure why polyandry would shake your faith.  

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

@lostinwater I'm sorry you have to deal with this.  I'm unfamiliar with your story but I'm unsure why polyandry would shake your faith.  

My thoughts....though not particular to or about @lostinwater as his ideas could be very different or any number of ideas on this otherwise...

Of course, it is going to be very longwinded...

Stuff I posted above in slight reference to.  Anti-Mormons take things out of context and without evidence to state certain things about polygamy and how it was practiced during the time of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.  The ideas of polyandry (a woman with more than one husband) relate in these instance, especially towards Joseph Smith on instances where he was probably sealed to someone (and many of these seaings are now seen as him being a proxy rather than actual, as there were literally hundreds of sealings to him from what I understand, but most are now not registered as that, it having been reduced to a couple dozen) but not necessarily married in the  temporal life is what they refer to.  We do not know how defined these sealings were in most cases, whether they were both temporal and eternal or just sealings for the next life.  There is a big question mark in some areas.  However, as far as PHYSICAL evidence goes to support the idea that he was actually married in this life to these woman and did certain acts with them is notably ABSENT today.  There is no physical evidence of it [CURRENTLY, there may pop up some in the future, but CURRENTLY we lack any that I am aware of].

Unfortunately, rather than look to see when and how these resources were stated (some of the most popular came from support of a trial several decades after Joseph Smith's death) they take them as settled, absolute, and defined.  They do not look at context, reliability, or even whether they exist in some cases.  They take it on faith that the short snippets they read or find are being relayed to them exactly as they were meant to.

Others will simply believe what others tell them (so much for actually doing research or looking it up themselves), and believe it (so much for thinking critically, or finding out for oneself).

And finally you do have a FEW that will do their research, see possibilities of one way or the other, realize what is true, what may or may not be true, and what is not true, and decide that they really do not agree with the idea or ideas.  I find that those Anti-Mormons who do this normally are less argumentative than those that are defined above.  Typically, I think this is because it is based on what they themselves have looked into, thought about, and decided for themselves.

The others, or former two mentioned, on the otherhand, are acting MORE about a matter of what they believe than anything based on fact.  Thus, it has become more like their new religion rather than something they study.  They are defending a new religion rather than any real facts on or research on the matter.  This differs from the latter who normally are not as aggressive.

What it boils down for with the latter is normally they do not agree with the doctrine or idea of Polygamy in any way that it is practiced.  They will disagree with the doctrinal assertions based upon our views regarding the Old Testament, and see it differently in interpretation.  Thus, regardless of how it was revealed or practiced, they feel it is wrong.  This is not an unusual feeling and is common among many, especially those who are not Mormon (or LDS, or the Saints).

Ironically, no one is called to live polygamy today.  It was done away as a doctrine people were commanded to follow in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  As we are not commanded to live polygamy (and one can see this via the manifesto at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants, though there were other manifesto's supporting it later issued as well) anymore, overall, for most I think it is a moot issue. 

To me, in some ways it is similar to animal sacrifice.  After the Lord came to earth and his death and resurrection the Saints were no longer told to practice animal sacrifice.  It was no longer a commandment for them to follow.  This applies to us today.  We no longer do animal sacrifice and are not under a commandment to follow it.  It was done in the Church a LONG time ago (and we are talking...a LONG time ago) in the days of the Old Testament but for us today, most of us will never see, participate, or even agree with the idea of animal sacrifice.

The other viewpoint that can be hard for people to swallow is a distinct change in how the Church did things.  Some would view it as a change in doctrine and many that do not, would agree that it is at least a change in policy.  It used to be that a woman could ONLY be sealed to one husband.  It was, as prophets stated, due to how the Patriarchal order was supposed to work and because there was order in all things.  This normally was not a problem.  However there were some cases where a woman was sealed to her husband but had divorced that husband and married another.  Some individuals had problems with the idea that she was now sealed to the one that she got divorced from rather than the one that she ended up married to.

Because of this and some other justifications (for example, they sealed some of those who were dead because relatives felt that they were going to be married and hence should be sealed together anyways) they changed how we did things.  Thus, after a woman dies, she is sealed to any and every man she was ever married to.  This can be seen in a way as polyandry, but in the form of it being done for the dead.  There are various explanations about this (that she thus now has a choice of who she will be with to the eternities and other ideas).

I do not think there is a problem bringing this up to discuss with the Saints.  It is not a problem here on these forums (I have mentioned at least the latter on these forums before) and I do not think people are going to crucify anyone who brings it up at church.  I CANNOT speak for how Relief Society would handle it, I am normally not in Relief Society or participating in their discussions. 

On a whole, my thought is, The KEY is HOW one brings it up and pursues it.  How respectful one is of others in church and their ideas and conversations.  The other item to consider is what the actual lesson is on.  If it is not an open forum and the lesson is not on this subject, derailing the lesson and focusing on this could be seen as a tad disruptive (or more disruptive, depending on the group).

I've caused disruptions in church before, or at least derailments of the lesson.  The worst was probably when I started talking about College Football one time and got the entire quorum discussing how their favored teams were doing.  That football conversation lasted the entire time and we never got back to what the lesson was (and I don't even recall what the lesson was about that day, but I recall the conversations on football).  Not my best or most shining moment and very rude on my part.  However, I was not excommunicated from the church or shunned on that, and even given leadership positions (not that I actually wanted them, sometimes to my great sorrow in having to do my duty with whatever position or calling I was in).

Those are just some of the things that can cause people to have difficulty with the ideas (more so dealing with polygamy itself rather than other items) of past church practices and sometimes practices done today.  It may not affect everyone in the same way.  Some may have no problems with these things, others have a great deal of difficulty with it.

Polygamy is one of those items where MANY have problems with it in Church history or talking about it or discussing it.  In instances such as that, @lostinwater is probably correct.  The polite thing is to simply not bring it up or force such a discussion on those who want to avoid the subject or feel uncomfortable discussing it.  I think I could see this being a situation that affects several (or many) members in the Church today.  However, if we keep our conversation relevant to the lesson and it is discussing this topic, and we keep it respectful and respect others views on it, I think it is not necessarily going to be something that makes others feel unnecessarily angry or upset with you if you discuss it.

Just MY thoughts on the matter.

Edited December 10, 2018 by JohnsonJones