What's "Anti-Mormon" to you?

[prisonchaplain]

On ‎12‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 1:27 AM, 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? 
And what about claims that are true? Can the truth be anti-mormon? . . .

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 recently posted this as advice to a different poster asking similar questions. I hope it proves helpful:

1. Ask open questions and be ready for answers you do not expect. For example, if a church member says, "Yes, I am born again. Jesus has forgiven my sins, and I expect to live in Heavenly Father's presence forever..." then accept that this poster embraces the Evangelical term 'born again.' Don't respond, "BUT you don't believe in being born again...salvation by grace...etc." On the other hand, it would be reasonable to respond to the unexpected answer with, "Great! Tell me how that happened for you."  I'll never forget having missionaries visit my house, and after sharing a bit about my own conversion asking them to bear their testimonies. They were so happy to do so, and a measure of trust grew between us.

2. Believe that it is the Holy Spirit who converts. We share the messages God gives us, point to scriptures as appropriate, but, especially when we visit another's "house," we do not push, badger, pressure, or manipulate people to make confessions they are not prepared to sincerely give. Billy Graham openly admitted than only about 10% of those who went forward for salvation at his meetings made their way to a church. He chose to be thankful for that 10%, hoping the others had at least received truth that could work on them over time.

 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

What do you think pushed them away?

It depends on which person you're talking about.  In my circles of friends and family, there have been more than a few people I've seen leave the Church.

It may be accurate (from a certain perspective) to say that there was a problem with THEM, just as there was a problem with ME.  The question is: do you decide to try to fix yourself?  Or do you decide you can't and blame it on God in some way shape or form?

Generally, those who leave choose to blame God in one way or another.  They may couch it in logic or "admitting reality" or science or a dozen other things just so they don't sound like they are blaming God.  But they are.

Those who choose atheism will end up blaming God.  But they'll justify it by saying,"There is no God.  So, I'm not blaming anyone."  But... yes, they are.

Edited December 11, 2018 by Guest

[Madam_Mim]

I totally understand that you see it this way (meaning that they're angry at or blaming god). But isn't it possible that in some cases someone simply never really believed in god and therefore decides to leave the church? No hatred towards the church. No desire to "sin". Just no belief in a god or the teachings of the church. 

Of course you can't compare leaving the lds church and leaving the catholic church in middle Europe - because here it's no big deal and my life didn't change a bit, but I remember when I started to dig into this topic and found there's really no reason to believe there is a god I was only feeling angry towards adults who taught us this stuff like it's the ultimate truth when we were kids. Now I understand that they don't do this out of bad intentions but because they truly believe these things. Back then it felt like they were lying to us and should have told us that this is just one of many beliefs and we don't know for sure if this is all really true. 
Maybe that's also a reason why some ex-LDS-members feel some kind of anger towards the church. When you feel that all of this wasn't true in the first place, it must be very frustrating to think of all the time and energy you spent on church-related things. 
 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

I totally understand that you see it this way (meaning that they're angry at or blaming god). But isn't it possible that in some cases someone simply never really believed in god and therefore decides to leave the church? No hatred towards the church. No desire to "sin". Just no belief in a god or the teachings of the church.

There are two things I can say to this.

1) I was speaking about those in my own circles whom I have personal experience with.  And two of them said they never believed it (more on that below).  I can speak with authority about my personal experience.  Any others?  Studies?  Statistics?  I don't know.  Neither do you.  What has been YOUR personal experience?  Mine has been that a two said they never believed it.  But I saw who they were and how they lived and why for many years.  Were they lying all those years?  I never thought of them as dishonest people.  But if they were dishonest, then, yes, there was something wrong with them.

2) ANY person in ANY ideology will think there is something wrong with ANYONE else who believes a different ideology.  You, for instance, came to this board primarily to complain that there were some things about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that you didn't approve of.  You said as much in the series of posts throughout this thread.  Some things that you believe are "not ok."

Why was it so important to tell us this?  Wasn't your first instinct "How can anyone be ok with this?" That is only somewhat more polite than "You're messed up if you believe this."

Perhaps you simply said, "they don't know any better."  That's basically a polite and kind way of saying they are ignorant.

Either of these two are ways of saying "There's something wrong with these people."  And from your point of view, you'd be right.  If we believe in something "THAT BAD" then there must be something wrong with us.  And we also think the same of you or those who have left the faith.

PREMISE:  The point is that if someone leaves a belief system, then they have to decide whether there is something wrong with themselves (their own ignorance, or lack of clarity, or...) or they decide there is something wrong with the belief system.  I can't really think of any other choices.  Can you?

GIVEN: The assumption that we believe our ideology to be true and correct.

CONCLUSION: Those who leave have something wrong with them if they leave.

This isn't just us.  It is you, your family, your friends, ANY human being.  If you believe your system to be correct, then anyone who departs from that ideology must have something wrong with them. 

Edited December 12, 2018 by Guest

[Jane_Doe]

15 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

I totally understand that you see it this way (meaning that they're angry at or blaming god). But isn't it possible that in some cases someone simply never really believed in god and therefore decides to leave the church? No hatred towards the church. No desire to "sin". Just no belief in a god or the teachings of the church. 

I have seen people leave the church due to honestly due to just "I never really believed" but find it's rare.  More common leaving to lack-of-faith I've seen is not never having it, but it breaking with some challenge.  For instance, I've seen people's faith be challenged through child loss and not overcoming that.  (I've seen this same trend in all beliefs systems equally, LDS and non and even atheist).

15 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

Of course you can't compare leaving the lds church and leaving the catholic church in middle Europe - because here it's no big deal and my life didn't change a bit, but I remember when I started to dig into this topic and found there's really no reason to believe there is a god I was only feeling angry towards adults who taught us this stuff like it's the ultimate truth when we were kids. Now I understand that they don't do this out of bad intentions but because they truly believe these things. Back then it felt like they were lying to us and should have told us that this is just one of many beliefs and we don't know for sure if this is all really true. 
Maybe that's also a reason why some ex-LDS-members feel some kind of anger towards the church. When you feel that all of this wasn't true in the first place, it must be very frustrating to think of all the time and energy you spent on church-related things. 
 

Totally, that's human nature.

I've seen the same anger when people leave all belief systems (including different scientific belief systems) and other moral systems.   

[Madam_Mim]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This isn't just us.  It is you, your family, your friends, ANY human being.  If you believe your system to be correct, then anyone who departs from that ideology must have something wrong with them. 

That's a good point. The way you explained it, I understand now what you mean by something wrong. At first it sounded too harsh to me and I thought I never found there's something wrong with anyone who believes but the way you state it, it makes sense to me why you would phrase it that way. It's kind of funny to think that - for example - you and I probably have quite opposite views and yet to both of us our own view seems like the obvious one. 

By the way, I'm sorry if my post sounded like I wasn't believing your statement about people blaming god. I was only interested in knowing if just not having any faith at all is not even a possibility to you. 

 

And just to make it clear: I apologize if my questions sounded condescending or upset anyone. I tried my best not to sound like a jerk  

I really enjoyed reading all of your comments and they made me understand certain aspects of your belief a little better. They also made me realize it's probably better to not talk about religion with my lds-friend haha. I'm not good at this it seems. 

[Jane_Doe]

5 minutes ago, Madam_Mim said:

I really enjoyed reading all of your comments and they made me understand certain aspects of your belief a little better. They also made me realize it's probably better to not talk about religion with my lds-friend haha. I'm not good at this it seems. 

A huge thing for talking about beliefs (religious or other types) is that all people involved need to take not just a single piece of humble-pie, but eat the entire pie.  You (all this is generic 'you', not Madamn Mim specifically) need to realize that your beliefs are best in your view (hence why you believe them in the first place), but not in another's.   You must treat the things which are sacred to others sacredly when talking to them.  You must take bow down in humility and truly listen, love, and respect.  And you must forgive when someone unknowingly tramples on something scared to you.  Not because you agree with these beliefs, but because you love the person.  

That is a HARD thing for us ego-centric humans to do.  

[Madam_Mim]

@Jane_Doe Great advice and I'll try to follow it. Thanks a lot!

[The Folk Prophet]

22 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Believe that it is the Holy Spirit who converts.

It's probably semantics, but I'm not sure I agree. The Holy Spirit witnesses, testifies, teaches, comforts, etc. But "conversion" is a choice we make through agency.

[prisonchaplain]

11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's probably semantics, but I'm not sure I agree. The Holy Spirit witnesses, testifies, teaches, comforts, etc. But "conversion" is a choice we make through agency.

Ultimately, you are correct. My point was that our boldest, most aggressive efforts to convert someone will prove fruitless, without the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. However, when the Holy Spirit draws a soul, even a subtle and cautious witness brings great harvest.

Edited December 12, 2018 by prisonchaplain

[lostinwater]

i have wondered about the phrase "loss of faith".  At least in religious contexts, it's almost always couched in negative terms.  Like an active choice to depart from that which is good.  Very often (not always), just using it presupposes the accurate classification (ie good) of the thing in which faith has been lost.  

But what is it that you are losing faith in?  What is it really?  What is it to you, and what is it to everyone else - and is there a difference between the two?  Why did you begin to have faith in it to start with?  And why have are you questioning now?  Are you departing from it because it wasn't what it claimed to be but wasn't, because of what it claimed not to be but was, or because of what something else is or appears to be?  And how much of your own biases and personal experiences is clouding your view of it all.  Or a hundred other questions that are almost impossible to answer objectively.  

And to obfuscate the whole thing even more, thousands of sects take the spiritual heft of an idea (ie God or Jesus), modify it to their liking, and then market it as the real thing.  And i'm not saying this is bad.  If you are right, you ought to do it.  Absolutely you ought to do it.  Though how anyone knows they are right is beyond me.  Is it because you've (or me, or anyone else) has had the same kinds of spiritual experiences that people who think exactly opposite to you have had?  The ones that can cause a hundred different people to know the same thing in a different way - all absolutely?  

This is one excerpt from Love Wins: A Book About Heaven and Hell that really resonated with me.  

i like  what @Jane_Doe says.  You have to believe that other people really do believe what they believe because they think it's the best thing.  Viewing the world any other way makes it incredibly easy to treat someone else poorly.  Because not only do they disagree with you - but they *know* they are wrong when they disagree with you.  And that, that's definitely a punishable offense!  

[The Folk Prophet]

9 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Like an active choice to depart from that which is good.

I remember that one time I lost faith in Satan.

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

And to obfuscate the whole thing even more, thousands of sects take the spiritual heft of an idea (ie God or Jesus), modify it to their liking, and then market it as the real thing.  And i'm not saying this is bad.  If you are right, you ought to do it.  Absolutely you ought to do it.  Though how anyone knows they are right is beyond me.  Is it because you've (or me, or anyone else) has had the same kinds of spiritual experiences that people who think exactly opposite to you have had?  The ones that can cause a hundred different people to know the same thing in a different way - all absolutely?  

"I absolutely know that God exists because He revealed Himself to me."

Is not equivalent to:

"I absolutely know that God does not exist because He has never revealed Himself to me."

People tend to equate the two sorts of things to each other. But they don't equate.

13 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

i like  what @Jane_Doe says.  You have to believe that other people really do believe what they believe because they think it's the best thing.  Viewing the world any other way makes it incredibly easy to treat someone else poorly.  Because not only do they disagree with you - but they *know* they are wrong when they disagree with you.  And that, that's definitely a punishable offense!  

Which idea, of course, totally fails when one also equates what I just said above to treating others poorly, which often happens.

[lostinwater]

14 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

"I absolutely know that God exists because He revealed Himself to me."

 Is not equivalent to:

"I absolutely know that God does not exist because He has never revealed Himself to me."

 People tend to equate the two sorts of things to each other. But they don't equate.

Which idea, of course, totally fails when one also equates what I just said above to treating others poorly, which often happens.

Thank-you, Sir.

So i guess this depends on which God you are referring to.  The God of the Muslims, or the Trinity, or Jesus, or God the Father.  Or the Protestant or Lutheran, or Jehovas Witness version of God.  

And i don't think what you said is at all treating someone else poorly.  Actually, i think it shows a lot of compassion and acknowledgment of another person's point of view.  And that is something i definitely respect and appreciate.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, lostinwater said:

And i don't think what you said is at all treating someone else poorly.

Where it ends up being interpreted that way is when you point out to someone that their logic is illogical. Then they get all huffy and start telling you how intolerant you are, etc.

2 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

So i guess this depends on which God you are referring to.  The God of the Muslims, or the Trinity, or Jesus, or God the Father.  Or the Protestant or Lutheran, or Jehovas Witness version of God.

Of course. We live by faith. But we do not live by faith alone. (Jacob 4)

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Where it ends up being interpreted that way is when you point out to someone that their logic is illogical. Then they get all huffy and start telling you how intolerant you are, etc.

We should be kind regardless of whether or not someone's view is logical.  Getting huffy is never a good thing, including when you really are right. 

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

We should be kind regardless of whether or not someone's view is logical.

I agree. But what is "kind" is quite subjective oft times.

8 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Getting huffy is never a good thing, including when you really are right. 

Depends on what one means by "getting huffy" I suppose. My experience tells me that this is also subjective. I have so many experiences I can hardly count them where I've stated something with no emotion or frustration or anything of the sorts and get back a response where they presume I'm "huffy" or "triggered".

I think, ultimately, my point is that this is a two way street. On the one hand we should strive to be Christlike. On the other hand we should not immediately presume others are always not if they don't perfectly fit our idea of what that means.

Edited December 12, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Madam_Mim said:

And just to make it clear: I apologize if my questions sounded condescending or upset anyone. I tried my best not to sound like a jerk  

I really enjoyed reading all of your comments and they made me understand certain aspects of your belief a little better. They also made me realize it's probably better to not talk about religion with my lds-friend haha. I'm not good at this it seems. 

Actually, I didn't find any of your statements or questions to be rude or confrontational.  I didn't mean to imply that they were.

[zil]

34 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Getting huffy

Here ya go:

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, zil said:

Here ya go:

 

36 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Depends on what one means by "getting huffy" I suppose.

My point made so eloquently.

[zil]

@Jane_Doe - just me being snarky with word associations.  You said "getting huffy", I posted a picture of a Huffy bike.  As in, I got you a Huffy.

[Jane_Doe]

Just now, zil said:

@Jane_Doe - just me being snarky with word associations.  You said "getting huffy", I posted a picture of a Huffy bike.  As in, I got you a Huffy.

Oh, I totally get it-- I love your humor.  It just totally catches me off guard sometimes.

[Jane_Doe]

40 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I agree. But what is "kind" is quite subjective oft times.

Depends on what one means by "getting huffy" I suppose. My experience tells me that this is also subjective. I have so many experiences I can hardly count them where I've stated something with no emotion or frustration or anything of the sorts and get back a response where they presume I'm "huffy" or "triggered".

I think, ultimately, my point is that this is a two way street. On the one hand we should strive to be Christlike. On the other hand we should not immediately presume others are always not if they don't perfectly fit our idea of what that means.

You and I have long disagree on what classifies as being kind vs brash

[Vort]

On 12/9/2018 at 11:51 AM, 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?

Jim, you've already been booted from this forum at least once. You refuse to answer any questions that demonstrate the pathetic weakness of your arguments, or frankly do much of anything except throw brickbats. Why the admins allow you to stay on this forum, I cannot even guess. But you might consider doing all of us a favor, yourself included, by leaving here and never coming back. Just an honest suggestion.

[The Folk Prophet]

46 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

You and I have long disagree on what classifies as being kind vs brash

Which supports my view quite nicely, thank you very much.