A Thought For Anti-mormons...

[snipe123]

"B.H. Roberts left us a marvelous analogy about this approach to truth. Speaking of an anti-Mormon of his day, Roberts said:

Mr. Wilson [Or insert your favorite Anti-Mormon here] is as one who walks through some splendid orchard and gathers here and there the worm-eaten, frost-bitten, wind-blasted, growth-stunted and rotten fruit, which in spite of the best of care is to be found in every orchard; bringing this to us he says: "This is the fruit of yonder orchard; you see how worthless it is; an orchard growing such fruit is ready for the burning." Whereas, the fact may be that there are tons and tons of beautiful, luscious fruit, as pleasing to the eye as it would be agreeable to the palate, remaining in the orchard to which he does not call our attention at all. Would not such a representation of the orchard be an untruth, notwithstanding his blighted specimens were gathered from its trees? If he presents to us the blighted specimens of fruit from the orchard, is he not in truth and in honor bound also to call our attention to the rich harvest of splendid fruit that still remains ungathered before he asks us to pass judgment on the orchard? I am not so blind in my admiration of the Mormon people, or so bigoted in my devotion to the Mormon faith as to think that there are no individuals in that Church chargeable with fanaticism, folly, intemperate speech and wickedness; nor am I blind to the fact that some in their over-zeal have lacked judgment; and that in times of excitement, under stress of special provocation, even Mormon leaders have given utterance to ideas that are indefensible. But I have yet to learn that it is just in a writer of history or of 'purpose fiction,' that 'must speak truly,' to make a collection of these things and represent them as of the essence of that faith against which said writer draws an indictment."

Picked up the quote listed above from here: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20...Propaganda.html

Wanted to share it because I love B.H. Roberts (Read his biography if you have not already done so.) and also because I think it is a brilliant analogy...bold print was added for emphasis...

[MorningStar]

That is a great quote! I wonder if it all comes down to pessimism?

[Deborah]

That is a great quote! I wonder if it all comes down to pessimism?

That is an interesting point because to fall for the anti line you have to accept what is negative and pretty much ignore or deny the positive. This is what I don't understand about those who all of a sudden discover some facet of the faith that creates doubt: instead of focusing on all the positives they've had in their life to that point, it's like that one seed of doubt starts taking over and soon grows to overshadow all the good they once believed. Instead of having faith that their questions will one day be answered by the Lord they would rather let those who hate the Lord and his church speak for him.

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

That is an interesting point because to fall for the anti line you have to accept what is negative and pretty much ignore or deny the positive. This is what I don't understand about those who all of a sudden discover some facet of the faith that creates doubt: instead of focusing on all the positives they've had in their life to that point, it's like that one seed of doubt starts taking over and soon grows to overshadow all the good they once believed. Instead of having faith that their questions will one day be answered by the Lord they would rather let those who hate the Lord and his church speak for him.

Wrestling with various idealogies and attempting to approach certain things with an open mind and objective manner can sometimes be difficult. This may be because of certain things we have incorporated and have come to believe and when change comes, we have a hard time assimilate new information and change.

While not making any excuse for any "Anti-Mormon" reasoning, the issue is much more deeper than what some think it to be.

It is always said, the best defense is the a good offense. Sometimes this is good, other times this is not so good.

In saying this, there are some good honest questions from those who are called "critics" of the LDS Faith (much like there are Members of the Church who are "Critics" of say Calvinism, or any other faucet of Christianity).

Some of the more objective and honest questions center around Archaeology support for the Bible. Biblical Archaeology is a more seasoned given scientific field. It is from Biblical Archaeology that we have a firm understanding of the nature of the Old and New Testament. The Old Testament has the LXX (Septuagent from the Hellenistic period of Judea), collaborated with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Great book of Isaiah, the Masoretic Text having come along in the 9th and 10th.

Support for the New Testament because of the 3,000 plus manuscripts that verify the Epistles of Paul, the Synoptic Gospels and the Johannine Gospel and Epistles.

Biblical Cultures, civilizations, kingships, rise and fall of empires.

With the continual growth of Biblical Archaeological Discovers, MesoAmerican Archaeology is still in its infancy, if not in its childhood. There are still things that have yet to be discovered and what has already been discovered in MesoAmerican History seems to point away from any verification of the Book of Mormon (scientifically speaking and from an archaeological standpoint in comparison of Biblical Archaeology and the Ancient Near Eastern Religious thoughts than that of MesoAmerican and MesoAmerican Religious thoughts).

The other faucet is deciphering true historical evidence and reason for the LDS Faith. From the LDS Perspective, there is no question that the LDS Church is the True Church and that Joseph Smith truly saw God and became a True Prophet. From the Orthodox and Traditional Christian Perspective, there is the sense of new ideas, teachings and doctrines that seem foreign to the already established norm.

When Orthodox and Traditional Christians question the doctrines and teachings of the LDS Church and faith, the LDS believer and LDS Member quickly and defensively says "Oh, you must be Anti-Mormon" or "You have read some Anti-Mormon Literature." When it could be someone bringing up a valid honest question that is quickly dismissed and pushed aside without any effort of understanding why and how they come to the conclusion that they come to.

This is not the LDS issue, it is also from the Orthodox and Traditional Christian Issue. When LDS Believers question Traditional and Orthodox Christian Doctrines, there is the tendency to lump all Christians under one umbrella and accuse all Christians of believing the same thing.

Yet, a closer look will reveal that there are even false teachers within the Christian believing Community of Orthodox, Traditional and Evangelical Christians.

The Word of Faith Movement and the Health and Wealth Prosperity Gospel Preachers (Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Charles Capps, Frederick Price, and the many supporters of the Trinity Broadcast Network - known as TBN) who preach that God wants all his children to be Healthy and Wealthy and if you are not Healthy, or subcuumb to some form of Illness (even the common cold) then you are not in God's Will and have some secret sin in your life that you need to confess. Or, if you are not wealthy and prosperous, then you are not in God's will and have sin that is blocking His blessing upon the believers.

In recent years, Homosexuality has invaded the Christian community that some Pastors and preachers who speak out against Homosexuality are considered to propogate Hate and Bigotry and some Christian denominations have allowed same Gender, or support for Same Gender attraction and those who condemn such doctrines and acceptance (according to Romans 1) are closedmindedness and against the freedom of expression.

A long standing debate between the Arminians and Calvinist (Which most LDS Believers may or may not be familiar with started with James Arminius when he approached the Dutch Church to accept 5 points of doctrines that he claimed to be biblical and as a response, the Dutch Church assembled themselves and examined the 5 points of what James Arminius claimed should be accepted and came out with what is now called the 5 Points of Calvinism). Yet, the debate was not just with James Arminius and culminated in what is now called the Synod of Dort, but between Pelagius and the Pelagian Doctrine and theology and debated with Saint Augustine of Augustus. Martin Luther even wrote a book entitled "The Bondage of the Will" as a response to Erasmus.

Even within the last several years, I have personally been engaged in a debate regarding the Dating of Revelation. There is one side that states that Revelation was actually written by John, the Apostle on the eve of the destruction of Jerusalem and in its historical context of the Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity in the first century prior to 70 AD and during the Reign of Nero, Revelation is not so "mysterious" after all. This is known as Preterism and Partial Preterism wherein that when Christ said "This Generation shall not pass away until all these things are fulfilled" and likewise "when you see the abomination of desolation that the Prophet Daniel was talking about" was literally fulfilled in 70 AD when Jerusalem and the Temple was destroyed by Titus. Roman Historian and Josephus wrote the nature surrounding the Destruction of Jerusalem.

To the First Century Jews and Christians, the coming of the Lord was expected to happen in their lifetime. In fact, one of the passages (2 Thessalonians) where it talks about there must come a falling away first and the man of sin is revealed is talking about the falling away of the Judaic Faith and religion and the man of Sin being Nero whose name in Hebrew was 666 and in greek 616.

With much history and much debate, it is difficult to understand if someone is coming from an objective viewpoint, or one who read some statement made by some author who claims to know more than what another person knows.

I myself have been called an "Anti-Mormon" yet, unlike some people like Ed Decker, I have the ability to verify some of the reasons why I believe the way I believe.

Ask me about the providence of Divine Election, there is more scriptural support for Predestination and the doctrine of Sovereign Election than there is for Free will. Now, am I a hyper calvinist? No, do I deny human free will? In a sense because I don't believe in Free will or Free Agency, but I believe in limited will and agency because Limited will and agency is self-evident in our own life and our own communities (which is for a different discussion altogether if anyone is interested in discussing such things).

The whole point I am making is that a label is a label and without understanding where the other person is coming from and understanding the other persons position and being able to attempt to see how and why they would draw to such conclusions that we may disagree with, then we may miss an opportunity to honestly engage in decent dialogue and see whether or not there is compatibility between the LDS Faith and Traditional Christianity.

There are evidences I can't ignore about the Church, however, there is evidence about the Church that I can't ignore either that I feel the Church itself and the Leaders have ignored and haven't outright come out and discuss such things.

I believe there is geological support of 3 Nephi and that it was a perfect description of a volcanic explosion. I also believe there is evidence about the history of the Joseph Smith First Vision account that brings into Question the actual date of when it occured (being later than what the History of the Church claims it to be) and the descrepencies when comparing the 7 varying accounts of the First Vision accounts given. (not saying that it is right or wrong, just making a point of observation).

The best thing we can do is be careful on how we label someone "anti" something. Because saying that someone is "Anti" is a very strong claim to make and if one can't back up that claim (meaning if you can't provide the burden of proof to prove that someone is "Anti") then you are very well mislabeling someone something they are not.

It would be like me or a Traditional Christian, or an Evangelical Protestant coming around and saying that Mormons are "Anti-Christian" because it is employeeing the same logical reason and conclusion that an LDS believer would say to an Evangelical or Traditional Christian believer that because they are presenting information that questions the doctrines and tenents of the LDS Faith that they are Anti Mormon.

We live in a society today that political correctness has everyone walking on eggshells and any person who comes to speak the truth is brandished as someone who is promoting bigotry and hatred without being acknowledged that they have a valid response.

I hope this makes sense.

[Deborah]

The best thing we can do is be careful on how we label someone "anti" something. Because saying that someone is "Anti" is a very strong claim to make and if one can't back up that claim (meaning if you can't provide the burden of proof to prove that someone is "Anti") then you are very well mislabeling someone something they are not. =

Not all ex-Mo's are Anti and not all Anti's are ex-Mo's. But when someone comes out with strident personal character assassinations against the prophets or accuses LDS of being brainwashed or unenlightened then I think the label fits pretty well. It is one thing to disagree with the archeological facts or even the origins of the BOM, but quite another to start making personal accusations based on one's interpretation of what little evidence there is and especially to do it in LDS venues.

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

Not all ex-Mo's are Anti and not all Anti's are ex-Mo's. But when someone comes out with strident personal character assassinations against the prophets or accuses LDS of being brainwashed or unenlightened then I think the label fits pretty well. It is one thing to disagree with the archeological facts or even the origins of the BOM, but quite another to start making personal accusations based on one's interpretation of what little evidence there is and especially to do it in LDS venues.

Very True and a very good valid point. Personal attacks and character assassinations (which I am guilty of myself at times) is not the best way to engage in any good form of discussion.

[Doctor Steuss]

Very True and a very good valid point. Personal attacks and character assassinations (which I am guilty of myself at times) is not the best way to engage in any good form of discussion.

I think all of us are ultimately going to be guilty of it at one point or another. Often in religious dialogue, the stakes are fairly high and emotions will inadvertently find their way in on occasion.

[Mountaingirl]

I am not an anti-Mormon, quite the opposite. I do have a hard time with the fact that you call everyone that leaves the Church an "anti" Mormon. We are Post Mormons, Ex Mormons... but not all of us are "Anti." It comes across as if the church thinks that everyone who doesn't agree with them is against them, and it's simply not the case. Just my 2 cents.

[Captain-Jack]

I am not an anti-Mormon, quite the opposite. I do have a hard time with the fact that you call everyone that leaves the Church an "anti" Mormon. We are Post Mormons, Ex Mormons... but not all of us are "Anti." It comes across as if the church thinks that everyone who doesn't agree with them is against them, and it's simply not the case. Just my 2 cents.

While I won't label you anything but you do see to paint that picture with quite a broad stroke of the brush. Not everyone calls anyone who leaves the church "anti".

[rickg]

Agreed. My brother has left the church, but I don't think he's really "anti". Just disagrees. Mostly with our claim to be "the only true church". But he's not out trying to tear us down. That's when you become "anti".

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

Agreed. My brother has left the church, but I don't think he's really "anti". Just disagrees. Mostly with our claim to be "the only true church". But he's not out trying to tear us down. That's when you become "anti".

What do you mean by "tearing down.." as being equated with becoming "Anti"?

From what I am gathering you are attempting to mean is that any person or individual that may criticize, scrutinize and pose questions that are of a sincere but examinatory nature being construed as "tearing down" and thus being "Anti".

If this is the case then LDS Apologist are essentially "Anti-Christian" in that there is a sense of critically examining certain doctrines and teachings of Creedal christianity that LDS members disagree with.

I am sure that this is something that most LDS Apologist and Members would say "now wait a minute."

Now, I can understand that those who blatantly disrespectfully have strong reasons to disagree and use tactics that are dishonest, negative and blatantly accusatory would earn the term "Anti".

I think the term "Anti-Mormon" has become more of a terminology that is abused than appropriately used.

[rickg]

No. What I mean by "tearing down", is a person that is actively out there working against us. One who is trying to persuade members to "get smart" and leave the church, and/or disuade non-members from joining, or even investigating. that's "anti". Simple as that. I don't even think "they" would disagree with me on that.

BTW, I just moved from Arlington a couple years ago. Actually, Granite Falls, but we had an Arlington address.

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

No. What I mean by "tearing down", is a person that is actively out there working against us. One who is trying to persuade members to "get smart" and leave the church, and/or disuade non-members from joining, or even investigating. that's "anti". Simple as that. I don't even think "they" would disagree with me on that.

BTW, I just moved from Arlington a couple years ago. Actually, Granite Falls, but we had an Arlington address.

I have been to Granite Falls and Arlington area.... Bellingham is nice too lol.......

I would agree to some extent with you on that. The part I would disagree is that the purpose and mission of any religion is to dissuade current and potential members in rethinking and reexamining their set beliefs and faith. Provide information to the investigator that is not provided from the particular religion.

Within the LDS Religion, it is every member that is a missionary. "Why is the Mormon Church considered the only true church of God?" Simple Answer: Because there was an apostasy of the original primitive first century christian church and we are a Restored Gospel of God's true teachings and we believe in modern day revelation. In a sense this statement is making the LDS Church superior to that of a protestant, evangelical and/or catholic faith. In this sense, it could be construed as an LDS being "Anti-Christian" in a sense.

That is why I believe we ought to be careful and learn to discern those who are aggressive just because they are miserable from those who are true and sincere in their convictions and stance.

[rickg]

Oh well. I've made my case, and feel it's plain and clear, not complicated.

I left the MADB board for the very reason of threads like this one. I won't go on ad infintum on an issue. Any issue. Ya'll have fun B)

[imported_Elphaba]

I once read the term "anti-Mormon" is a thought-stopping cliche' and I almost did a jig, because, for me, that is absolutely true. I am the only ex-member in my family and therefore have no credibility whatsoever.

Since then, I've had two different conversations devolve to each sibling calling me an anti-Mormon because I did not agree with each of them. I was so glad to be able to respond with "That's just a thought-stopping cliche', and no I an not an anti-Mormon.

Both times they've been taken aback. One of them agreed with me, apologized and we went on and had a really interesting, respectful conversation.

The other left. That made me sad.

Elphaba

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

I once read the term "anti-Mormon" is a thought-stopping cliche' and I almost did a jig, because, for me, that is absolutely true. I am the only ex-member in my family and therefore have no credibility whatsoever.

Since then, I've had two different conversations devolve to each sibling calling me an anti-Mormon because I did not agree with each of them. I was so glad to be able to respond with "That's just a thought-stopping cliche', and no I an not an anti-Mormon.

Both times they've been taken aback. One of them agreed with me, apologized and we went on and had a really interesting, respectful conversation.

The other left. That made me sad.

Elphaba

And this is the point I attempt to make. It is a cliche of convenience. When someone disagrees and is outside the faith (or established organization) then it doesn't matter if what they present in the discussion is substantiated and evidentiary the card pulled out is "anti" whatever your particular flavor is. This is not just within the LDS Realm, or even the religious realm. "Anti" is not a negative term. For instance, those who claim Pro-Choice are nothing more than those who are advocates for Pro-Abortion. Mormon's (among mainstream Christianity) is "Anti-Abortion" in that one is against the Pro-Abortion and Pro-Abortion Agenda.

Even in the political arena, there has seemed to arise an "Anti-Bush Administration" movement. "Anti-War" plagued those who were contemparies of the Vietnam War and now against the Iraq War.

Certain belief systems (Take for instance the Word of Wisdom) is anti in its basic definition and essence. So, being "Anti" is not merely something that conjures up negative, despiteful, misconception and dishonest dialogue, but a particular position one takes against another position.

Another way of looking at this is with the movement of the Homosexual movement. It can be broken down with Those who are Pro-Homosexuality, making their stance and agenda "Anti-Heterosexual" and those who are Pro-Heterosexual are "Anti-Homosexual".

In this sense, one who is Pro-Mormon is essential Anti-Mainstream Christian. One who is Pro-Orthodox and Mainstream Christian is, in essence, Anti-Mormon.

Yet, going back to the original point of discussion, the fact is, most members of the LDS church erroneously come to the conclusion that when someone disagrees and questions the validity of doctrines and examines are called out as "anti-mormons" and then are demeaned, ridiculed and treated with disrespect.

This is where I have the issue with the term "Anti-Mormon". It is the abuse of the term that I am against

[snipe123]

And this is the point I attempt to make. It is a cliche of convenience. When someone disagrees and is outside the faith (or established organization) then it doesn't matter if what they present in the discussion is substantiated and evidentiary the card pulled out is "anti" whatever your particular flavor is. This is not just within the LDS Realm, or even the religious realm. "Anti" is not a negative term. For instance, those who claim Pro-Choice are nothing more than those who are advocates for Pro-Abortion. Mormon's (among mainstream Christianity) is "Anti-Abortion" in that one is against the Pro-Abortion and Pro-Abortion Agenda.

Even in the political arena, there has seemed to arise an "Anti-Bush Administration" movement. "Anti-War" plagued those who were contemparies of the Vietnam War and now against the Iraq War.

Certain belief systems (Take for instance the Word of Wisdom) is anti in its basic definition and essence. So, being "Anti" is not merely something that conjures up negative, despiteful, misconception and dishonest dialogue, but a particular position one takes against another position.

Another way of looking at this is with the movement of the Homosexual movement. It can be broken down with Those who are Pro-Homosexuality, making their stance and agenda "Anti-Heterosexual" and those who are Pro-Heterosexual are "Anti-Homosexual".

In this sense, one who is Pro-Mormon is essential Anti-Mainstream Christian. One who is Pro-Orthodox and Mainstream Christian is, in essence, Anti-Mormon.

Yet, going back to the original point of discussion, the fact is, most members of the LDS church erroneously come to the conclusion that when someone disagrees and questions the validity of doctrines and examines are called out as "anti-mormons" and then are demeaned, ridiculed and treated with disrespect.

This is where I have the issue with the term "Anti-Mormon". It is the abuse of the term that I am against

For me, an anti-Mormon is someone like B.H. Roberts describes...someone who cannot, or will not see a hint of good in the church and seeks to bring it down by the use of misquotes, yellow journalism, half-truths, the cultivation of sensationalistic, dark and negative atmosphere in their writings, never a hint of discussion about sincerely held beliefs and practices according to the perspective of those who hold those beliefs (the good fruit), attacking their interpretation of what Mormons believe instead of the actual belief...etc...To disagree with someones theology or even to preach an opposite view, does not make one an anti-Mormon...To employ such tactics used by the likes of Ed Decker, the Tanners, the venemous protestors on temple square, and the early anti-mormons that they plagerize from (like Tucker, Howe, Peck etc...) is certainly anti-Mormon...

[NeuroTypical]

My two cents:

The term "anti-mormon" is about as useful as calling someone a bigot or homophobe. Once the term is used, no matter how applicable it is, the reasonable discussion is over, and everyone descends down to the level of playground namecalling.

I might use the term "church critic" to describe people who author and advance criticisms of the church. That's never offended anybody.

There is a difference between a church critic, and someone who has heard a church criticism and is asking mormons what they think about it.

All in all, I find charity to be a great enhancer of reasonable discussion. And assigning labels to people quite often offends charity.

LM

[imported_leeuniverse]

That is a great quote! I wonder if it all comes down to pessimism?

Not to bring politics in it, but just an observation from experience.

This is exactly like Liberalism.... Dealing with both on a daily basis, it never ceases to cause me wonder how both are exactly alike, in their bearing false witness, misrepresentation of leadership, conservatives, in it's supposed "careing", but not careing enough to help the Iraqi's be stable, etc.

It's the paradigm of the darkside.

[imported_leeuniverse]

My two cents:

The term "anti-mormon" is about as useful as calling someone a bigot or homophobe. Once the term is used, no matter how applicable it is, the reasonable discussion is over, and everyone descends down to the level of playground namecalling.

I might use the term "church critic" to describe people who author and advance criticisms of the church. That's never offended anybody.

There is a difference between a church critic, and someone who has heard a church criticism and is asking mormons what they think about it.

All in all, I find charity to be a great enhancer of reasonable discussion. And assigning labels to people quite often offends charity.

LM

The problem with that view, is that most are not simply "church critics", they are anti-mormon. Church critic is for the respectful person who simply disagrees with LDS theology, etc. Anti-mormon however is appropriately for the person who bears false witness, misrepresents, portray's the Church in a immoral non-respectful fashion etc. So, to dignify an anti-mormon with the term "critic" is disengenous.

Trying to make everyone your friend does not mean you compromise on truth or values. Even Christ couldn't make everyone understand him correctly, he and the apostles still classified people according to their behavior and attitudes appropriately. Calling someone a critic is not going to change their behavior and attitudes. You can be respectful as appropriate in other ways, but, anti-mormon is an appropriate term to describe such people.

They are the ones that need to change if it is offensive to them, not us.

[Guest Seraphim]

Not to bring politics in it, but just an observation from experience.

This is exactly like Liberalism.... Dealing with both on a daily basis, it never ceases to cause me wonder how both are exactly alike, in their bearing false witness, misrepresentation of leadership, conservatives, in it's supposed "careing", but not careing enough to help the Iraqi's be stable, etc.

It's the paradigm of the darkside.

Welcome to ldsforums, Lee. Please remember that this is a board for congenial discussion and refrain from making political comments.

Seraphim

[Gaia]

That is an interesting point because to fall for the anti line you have to accept what is negative and pretty much ignore or deny the positive. This is what I don't understand about those who all of a sudden discover some facet of the faith that creates doubt: instead of focusing on all the positives they've had in their life to that point, it's like that one seed of doubt starts taking over and soon grows to overshadow all the good they once believed. Instead of having faith that their questions will one day be answered by the Lord they would rather let those who hate the Lord and his church speak for him.

GAIA:

Hello Deborah and others --

Are you sincerely asking why people begin to question, and why those questions can begin to overwhelm what may have previously been, confidence and assurance??? Because there are reasons *gentle smile*.

With all due respect, i guess i have to say that the responses and ideas here, sure seem to be awfully negative, themselves!

Isn't it possible for someone to have honest, sincere questions, doubts or concerns, that are not addressed by the admonition to "just have faith" -- In fact, such admonitions can be understood as a way to avoid the difficult questions, and even try to discredit and marginalize those who ask them.

Contrary to what many seem to think, it can be incredibly painful, frightening and frustrating to begin having what had previously been firm conviction, suddenly troubled by questions that are just not easily, quickly answered or set aside.

It seems that many want to believe that questioning is only the result of a) sinfulness, B) lack of faith; c) superficial, immature or trivial matters. While it may be true that some few people do begin to question the church or Gospel on the basis of such problems, it is also true that many come to have profound spiritual, ethical, moral questions on doctrinal or historical matters, that cannot simply be ignored, suppressed, easily answered or set aside.

And i cannot help but wonder whether -- INSTEAD of punishing, labelling them, marginalizing or denigrating them for it -

-- If our duty isn't rather, to MINISTER unto them.

Sincerely --

~Gaia