Anti-Mormons

[OtterPop]

Originally Posted by jimuk

If you ask, really wanting, needing to know, with no bitterness, your father will let it be known to you by the spirit. It is such a simple way of of finding out.

jimuk,

I believe it was simple for you, but you cannot possibly know what will happen for someone else.

[OtterPop]

Originally Posted by jimuk

As i have said many times, If this church is so wrong then wouldent it be easier for Satan to just leave us alone and let us get on with it, of course he would, for we would be sealing our own fate, much easier for him to go after some other religion that was drawing to near to heavenly father, am i the only one to see this lol.

This is a specious argument that so many Mormons use, and it's one part of a circular argument. If something goes smoothly for the LDS Church, it's because it's God's church and He is clearing the way. If there are difficulties, it's because it's God's church, and Satan is fighting it.

Using this "logic," Scientology is a lot closer to the truth than Mormonism.

[Elphaba]

Hi tsubotsubo,

Originally Posted by tsubotsubo

Okay, sorry if my post has upset you, but I've had many, what I consider to be 'anti-mormons' question me, in real life, as to why I'm a mormon. When this all first started happening to me, I believed they were sincere, and interested in my religion, but it just spun out of control, and now, today, they clearly have found a list of facts that 'disprove' my religion, and expect me respond everytime,

First, your post did not upset me, per se. It is the assumption by so many posters that because I am an ex-Mormon and an atheist, that nothing have to say has any merit, and that I must be an anti-Mormon.

Your sincere response was very kind and level, and I really appreciate that. As far as the people on the site who think I have no place here, they are wrong. If they could get past the stereotype, they would discover I am not an "anti," and that I can, sometimes, add perspectives that are useful, especially to those who are open to them, knowing they are not meant to offend, but just to discuss.

I also agree the people you've talked to are incredibly rude. If I were you, once you realized their agenda, I would thank them for their information, and then tell them you were not going to discuss it with them anymore. You are not obligated to give them a reason why, and while they will still try to bait you, if you keep refusing to discuss it, in a polite manner, eventually they would stop.

and there's just so much 'darkness' in my religion that they've gone on from years, and repeated themselves very little.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I don't perceive "darkness," though there are quite a few questionable incidents.

But learning about these issues, in my opinion, has three positives:

1) You will discover the earliest members were flawed, yet their courage was inspiring. The fledgling Church had many setbacks, but it thrived despite them.
2) You will discover what I call the “difficult issues” of the Church’s history, and given your strong testimony, you probably will be even more moved by how difficult it was for these people to keep going, despite set back after set back.
3) You will also discover the difficult issues, that are seriously hard to accept, or explain. For example, while Joseph was, in my opinion, a man of deep compassion and fortitude, he also did some things that were not ethical. And again, if you know about these things in advance, you will not be side-swiped by those who want to use these incidents to make you feel foolish.

You will also understand that whatever Joseph did, it was for the Church. He never sought riches or power. He was a complex man, who had a hard time when people disagreed with him. But whatever happened, even when his decisions were not the best, it was always for the survival of the Church.

Now I'm considered an absolute deluded idiot for being part of a religion that seems to discriminate against everyone except white, straight men. These people clearly are 'against mormonism (or maybe against me), but they're definately 'anti'.

This is one of these "difficult truths" I described earlier, because there are Latter-day Saints who still believe this. One of them is my mother. Additionally, I'm 52, and I remember everyone believing this when I was a child in the Church, though I think this belief was only taught in the early pioneer days of the Church.

I also think it is probably restricted to Utah and the western states, but I am not sure about that. But as I alluded to above, my mother still believes African Americans were the less valiant in the pre-existence, and her bigotry is appalling. When we talked about Katrina she was so bigoted I literally was nauseous. And we still cannot talk about it today, as I feel physically assaulted by her bigotry. So, there are members who do fit your friend's description.

And then, of course, there are Brigham’s, and other leaders’ comments about African American’s inferiority.

So how do you deal with this when it is brought up? You admit it. You say it was true, and it was wrong, and that you wish it hadn’t happened, but it did.

And then either refuse to discuss it, or you can explain the Church’s leaders have acknowledged this, and have exhorted its members that discrimination is unacceptable and of the adversary. President Hinckley was especially insistent about this, and it is the reason I loved him.

It never really occured to me that people can discuss these things with mormons and actually be genuinely interested rather than make a fool of them. It's just that, for me, everytime I respond to their evidence against mormonism, they just say that my replies are immature, or vague, or contradict myself, and it makes me very upset, as I have no one to help me.

Are you a very new member? If so, that can make it difficult, as there is a lot of information to absorb. Again, until you feel comfortable, just tell them you're not going to discuss it. Be firm, because you are not obligated to talk to people who only want to berate you. Perhaps once you feel more comfortable, you can choose to discuss it.

Let me give you an example from my own life: I lived in Salt Lake, and used to work with a woman who held the Church in disdain. She was not originally from America, and when she moved to Utah she was put off by its religiosity. She knew I was an ex-Mormon, and we discussed the Church often.

She would often claim things were "doctrine," when they were not. For example, she insisted members had to bring their tax returns to tithing settlements. I actually know of one obscure bishop who did insist on this, and suspect she had heard of this through office gossip; however, I know it is not proper procedure, and not practiced, and I was very adamant about this with her. But she would not believe me. However, I didn't let it bother me, because she was not open to the truth; and only wanted someone to agree with her, and when she was wrong, I would not do that.

But if I had been new to the Church, and not as familiar with its history and doctrine, then I would not have felt comfortable talking with her, and would have told her I didn't want to. She was a very aggressive person, so I would have had to be very insistent. But I'm pretty good at that, so it wasn't a problem.

Now, I've just gotten to a point where I research everything in advance, using sites like FAIR and exmormon.org to be prepared (and it does quite annoy them when I am for some reason).

Good for you! It will help you, I promise. You might also want to visit MADB, which is an apologetics site supporting and discussing Church issues. (Apologetics only means it defends the Church, not that it’s apologizing for anything. It’s an academic term.)

I would say, and it’s my opinion only, that FAIR can be as biased as those you consider anti-Mormons. Additionally, not everything you discover at exmormon.com is untrue. In fact, I found the Sunstone article I posted at exmormon.com via a google search.

The more time you spend reading information from both sides, the more you’ll be able to discern those on the “fringes," and those who are reasonable and informative. At least, that was my experience.

And I know that most of what I've posted is true. I've had a LOT of proof for each of the, seemingly hundreds of facts, thrown in my face, but some of them actually are not true. For example, Joseph Smith did not prophesy that men live on the moon. I haven't found a first-hand account of him saying it yet, and, if the church is true, he wouldn't have prophesied incorrectly, and if the church isn't true, he wouldn't be able to prophesy at all. A more reasonable accusation to make would be 'Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said men live on the moon'.

See, just as you’ve discovered, this incident is not black and white. In fact, the article I've attached below delves even further into the “men on the moon” comments, explaining this was not an unusual belief at the time, and I think you’ll find it very interesting. I did.

The following is an excerpt from a Sunstone article about this issue:
In the first half of the nineteenth century scientists may have differed on the question of intelligent life on the moon, but such a notion was by no means a discredited idea. In 1822 William Herschel died. He was the greatest astronomer of his time; he discovered the planet Uranus in 1781 and became official astronomer to King George III. In 1976 Patrick Moore, Director of the Lunar Section of the British Astronomical Association, wrote of William Herschel: As an observer it is possible that he has never been equaled, and between 1781 and his death, in 1822, every honor that the scientific world could bestow came his way. His views about life in the Solar System were, then, rather surprising. He thought it possible that there was a region below the Sun’s fiery surface where men might live, and he regarded the existence of life on the Moon as "an absolute certainty."

In 1780 Herschel, in a letter to a disbelieving astronomer, asked: Who can say that it is not extremely probable, nay beyond doubt, that there must be inhabitants on the Moon of some kind or another?

I do have two last comments "before I close." (No, this is not a Sacrament talk.)

1. All of my advice about how to approach those who would demean your faith is just that: advice. You are perfectly capable of deciding how you want to deal with this. So just take my advice in the way it is offered, and do as you best decide.

2. I sense from your strong testimony that your conversion was profound, and I am sincerely very glad for you. But many of us have not had the same experience, despite doing everything you, and anyone else has done, to gain that testimony. So while we may approach issues from different angles, it does not mean I am an "anti," and you are not beyond the discussion. That is a very good thing, IMO.

So, if you’ve gotten this far, thanks for reading my ramblings. We all have different perspectives, but that doesn't mean there needs to be discord and distrust.

Elphaba

[Islander]

This is a subject worth researching in detail and perhaps even developing an inquiry scope for a thesis. I seriously doubt that it has similitude in other religious tradition.

Here is an LDS forum, with very explicit and publicly stated purposes, where the expectation is for those perhaps of other faith seeking information about LDS religion and traditions, or members hoping to share and exchange experiences and knowledge seek and congregate. What I have found, very surprisingly, is that a very significant group of participants are no longer members, seriously inactive, atheists, of other faiths but not seriously seeking to understand but to offer a counterpoint to LDS doctrine or simply to showcase their own brand of Christianity.

I am not a psychologist, but I am sure one of them would find these conflicting dynamics fascinating! People engaged, compelled by an unknown drive to participate in (the forum) something they admittedly want no part of (LDS religion), they decided of their own volition to abandon or simply believe otherwise not to be true! But they spend hours literally engaged in the exchange.

I am just beside myself!!

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by Islander

This is a subject worth researching in detail and perhaps even developing an inquiry scope for a thesis.

A woman whose screen name is Juliann at Mormon Apologetics Discussion Board, has discussed Apostates in the Study of NRMs for quite some time. (I’m sorry, it’s been so long since I’ve visited the site that I’ve forgotten what “NRM” stands for.)

Of course, I disagree with her conclusions, as I find her bias too entrenched for the objectivity the research deserves. However, I’m sure you will enjoy the thread very much, and I say that with no sarcasm.

I seriously doubt that it has similitude in other religious tradition.

I wonder how many tracts, message boards, expose’s, “Christian or Cult” discussions, or any of the myriad of other detractors’ methods it takes to determine whether one religious tradition is more despised than another?

And what if the one has only ten, twenty, or two gazillion more detractors than the other? Does that make the one religious tradition more true, or less true, than the others?

I googled Jehovah’s Witnesses, and within ten minutes I had eleven websites divulging the ills of this religious tradition. A few of these have forums that look much like lds.net.

Jehovah's Witnesses - Christian or Cult?
Jehovah's Witness Exposed Home Page
Spotlight on Jehovah's Witnesses
BEACON for former Jehovah's Witnesses
Jehovah's Witnesses Recovery - Beyond Jehovah's Witnesses (contents)
Jehovah's Witness Online - Discussion Board Index page
Witnessing to Jehovah's Witnesses - EffectiveEvangelism.com
Jehovah's Witness New Convert website
Diane Wilson - Reviews
Jehovah's Witnesses grow by 'devious' methods, charge anti-missionaries - Haar
Reasoning with Jehovah's Witnesses, Introduction

An “inquiry scope” would yield similar detractors from many other religious traditions, including some we have probably never heard of. In fact, I’m surprised a man capable of elucidating the descriptor “inquiry scope” did not think to actually have a go at discovering these other “religious traditions'” detractors before making the query.

(I'm so sorry. I'm being mean because "inquiry scope" is so collegiate and pedantic. As a former editor, and in spite of my masters' "inquiry scope," I guess I wrote for the masses for far too long, because putting "inquiry scope" on a message board just cracks me up.)

I have two very good friends who may be willing to add scope to the inquiry. In fact, they both joined the Church about six months ago, perhaps a little less. While their decisions were made, of course, with their own hearts, I know that my support did mean something to each of them. And I love them both dearly and will always support their decisions.

You know, now that I think of it, given your concern about those of us who are no longer LDS, who enjoy participating on the site, (but are not interested in understanding), there are other LDS boards out there that are very happy to hear your testimony, including those of my friends, but not mine. And I have absolutely no problem with this. The one I have in mind does not allow any negative discussion of anything pertaining to the Church. Interested?

Here is an LDS forum, with very explicit and publicly stated purposes, where the expectation is for those perhaps of other faith seeking information about LDS religion and traditions, or members hoping to share and exchange experiences and knowledge seek and congregate.

What I have found, very surprisingly, is that a very significant group of participants are no longer members, seriously inactive, atheists, of other faiths but not seriously seeking to understand but to offer a counterpoint to LDS doctrine or simply to showcase their own brand of Christianity.

That is unfortunate.

Luckily, I have found literally dozens of interesting people whose stories are complex, yet moving, and inspiring, both LDS and non. I find it is always stimulating to read about different people’s perspectives, including those who are staunchly LDS.

Most posters, in my opinion, are not put off by honesty. I know many posters are surprised by my atheism at first, but if they take the time to get to know me, they realize I’m just a silly old woman with nothing better to do than spend time on a Mormon message board because I love it, and that I have no ulterior motives to worry anyone’s head about.

That does not mean we always agree. I have strong disagreements with a few of my closest friends. But the discussion has been worthwhile, though rocky at first. I know I am very glad we stuck it out. I am thinking of particularly two friends for whom I care quite a lot. Maybe three, but that's it. Okay, thirty. You know who you are.

I am not a psychologist, but I am sure one of them would find these conflicting dynamics fascinating! People engaged, compelled by an unknown drive to participate in (the forum) something they admittedly want no part of (LDS religion), they decided of their own volition to abandon or simply believe otherwise not to be true!

That is interesting, I suppose. Why don’t you find a psychologist who would be fascinated? I’m sure if your search were unsuccessful, you could write an “inquiry scope,” to pique a wavering psychologist’s interest.

(Okay, I promise. I'll be good from now on. In fact, you can have a swipe at me next time. You've earned it!)

But they spend hours literally engaged in the exchange. . . .

Guilty as charged!

I am disabled, and joined the site when it was LDSTALK. Things have changed since the transition to lds.net, as my participation was never questioned on TALK. But I admit, I never sleep, am often bedbound, and spend literally hours and hours engaged in the exchange.

I also admit I do have a reason for my love of discussing the Church that is personal, and thus, something I will not disclose. But I have no nefarious motives, and like I said, once you get to know me. . . well, you get the idea.

I am just beside myself!!

Yikes! Does it hurt?

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by Maurice

Thank you for your reply - I do not deserve such a reply - it has not upset me in the way you think - What has upset me is the nature of your reply. I was only making a comment- to explain both sides. You do not seem to understand that the quote I gave has upset many non-Mormons. I am not writing to engage in any arguement. People can be interested and and have a desire to understand without being anti. I am sorry if you do not feel I am genuine. If I may mention it - I am 67 years of age and spent many years teaching and your letter concerns me because you appear to be uptight -and unwilling to enter into any othe view - I do not know how you can write that your post has upset me.
I only sent a short comment.
Maurice.

Huh?

Elphaba

[Islander]

LOL...very loud. I guess I understand a few things now.
Elphaba, carry one. Do your thing.

[Maurice]

I have no idea why you have written to me the way you have but in reply I do not need a prophet fore I have a Saviour who is with me Hebrews 4:14-16 and the Holy Spirit (Ghost) who guides into into truth. John 14:12-15. I thought I would reply .
Maurice

[Justice]

And, what truth does He guide you to?

Do you ignore all the prophets and apostles mentioned in the Bible? I suppose it was a different time, but there aren't any now?

What if there was one? What if Moses were alive today? Would you follow him or would you keep trying to find the truth yourself?

Well, there IS a Moses alive today. There IS a man who God chose to speak for Him to the world, or to all who will listen. Prophets are used to being rejected and not followed. It's happened all throughout history, why should it be different today?

All I will ever ask you to do is sincerely pray to know whether or not God speaks to men today, and then read the Book of Mormon and decide for yourself. I would never ask you to take my word for it.

[Maurice]

The truths are those found within the Bible-Who is this Moses that is alive today? Jesus is alive today. I am not ignorant concerning the Book of Mormon.I am studying it in depth and would ask you to explain to me one teaching regarding salvation that is in the book of Mormon that is not in the Bible. Please note what I have said - in the Book of Mormon not in Doctrine and Covenants etc. You may accuse me a trying to enter into an arguement thjis is not my aim> I am interested inclarification. Have you read the book my Robert L Millet and Gerald R McDermott "Claiming Christ" Although Millet is a LDS and McDermott and evangelical Christian they are able to discuss isues without each trying to gain.points over the other. All I desrie is honest answers - I have read article 11 of Articles of Faith and understand it.
Maurice