Anti-Mormons

[pnewton]

If you just disagree with its theology but do not “oppose” it, you are not. That is how I look at it. It is up to you how you want to play it.

What if you one disagrees because the theology is so opposed to Christianity and considers the LDS Church structure to have many marks of a cult. Does this make one anti-Mormon when these things can be objectively examined?

 

[Stephen168]

…just out of curiosity, do you know what Murdock actually means?

Murdock means when you disagree with mormon beliefs you are anti-mormon. For example if you say, “ the Book of Mormon is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be because there is no scientific evidence to support it,” that would be anti-mormon; even if it is a true statement.

 

[dianaiad]

What if you one disagrees because the theology is so opposed to Christianity and considers the LDS Church structure to have many marks of a cult. Does this make one anti-Mormon when these things can be objectively examined?

yes.

…ok, that’s pretty bald, but…

yes. It does.

First, “opposed to Christianity” and “cult” are both buzz terms that signal an attitude that is subjective and oppositional rather than simple criticism. Why? Because of course you haven’t defined “Christianity,” but you ARE signaling that your definition of that term is “well, whatever it is, you aren’t it…” and that idea is confrontational right there.

Second, you haven’t defined “cult.” Right now that word has an almost visceral punch to it; nobody really knows what it means, exactly, but whatever it is, it’s bad. Subjective and confrontational, again.

“Cult” is a bit like the word “*****” or “bastard.” (Oh, that’s funny! The auto-moderator eliminated the four letter word for ‘female dog,’ but allowed the far more perjorative 'bastard." There is no accounting for artificial intelligence, is there? Shoot, I think that the word “CULT” should be starred out, if you ask me… ) There is nothing wrong with either word, technically, if you happen to be talking about canines and genealogy. However, they are so common as insulting terms that the literal meaning is lost in the insult. That’s what ‘cult’ is.

So…

Yeah. You are.

However, if you say something like, oh…Mormon beliefs are very different from traditional, orthodox Christianity…you say pretty much the same thing but you aren’t beginning the conversation by getting everybody’s anti-radar spinning.

As to ‘cult,’ well…first you define what a cult means to YOU. If you choose to define it using LDS beliefs, then nobody is going to pay attention; it is circular and obviously anti–and equally obviously a calculation on your part to encourage ire and to insult.

However, if you define ‘cult’ in a way that sociologists and religious scholars agree on, lay out the requirements, and then prove that our beliefs MATCH that, then…Ok. That would be ‘criticism,’ not 'anti-"

Good luck doing that, by the way. The sociological and religious definitions of ‘cult’ are both so narrow and so broad that either every theist belongs to one, or very few do, or some of us started that way and have ‘grown’ out of it, or nobody ever was.

But to use the word as a pejorative in order to express your disgust and personal distaste for our beliefs?

Yep, that’s being an anti.

Sorry about that.

 

[dianaiad]

Murdock means when you disagree with mormon beliefs you are anti-mormon. For example if you say, “ the Book of Mormon is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be because there is no scientific evidence to support it,” that would be anti-mormon; even if it is a true statement.

No sir, that statement all by itself is NOT 'anti-." It could be anti- depending on the context. It IS, however, pushing the line pretty hard, because you are declaring as a proven fact the question under discussion. That tends to be a bit off-putting.

It might be better to restate it as an opinion, rather than as a bald statement of fact (one cannot, after all, prove a negative) by saying “I have seen no scientific evidence that supports the claims Joseph Smith had for the Book of Mormon.”

What your statement IS, is bad debate tactics, illogical and rude. Doesn’t quite reach the level of anti, though. At least it doesn’t in my opinion.

You will have to judge for yourself what your motives are for couching your opinion in quite that confrontational a manner. It is, after all, intent that matters most, don’t you think?

 

[zerinus]

What if you one disagrees because the theology is so opposed to Christianity and considers the LDS Church structure to have many marks of a cult. Does this make one anti-Mormon when these things can be objectively examined?

Yes. If you are “opposed” to Mormonism that makes you anti-Mormon. Now your “opposition” may be based on fact or fiction. It may be justified or unjustified (in your estimation). That is a different issue. If you are “opposed” to something, that means you are “against” it, and that makes you “anti-”. And I don’t see why you should be embarrassed by that. In the 19th century, anti-Mormons were proud to be called such. They were more honest than the “antis” of today.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

What if you one disagrees because the theology is so opposed to Christianity and considers the LDS Church structure to have many marks of a cult. Does this make one anti-Mormon when these things can be objectively examined?

I think you’d have to define ‘cult’ first.

If it’s the term Evangelicals use to disparage anyone they think don’t teach “orthodox” beliefs, then I’d say it’s a useless classification, uncharitable, and bordering juvenile.

If it’s the sociological term used to denote a very tight-knit, geographically bounded religious group, then I’d say the LDS outgrew this term once Zion began to expand outside the Jello-belt.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Do you have a short reply for anything?

Now, now, Rebecca, that’s just wrong of you. For one thing, that’s a ‘litany’ that everybody who sees a tattoo of any sort goes through; ‘why this tattoo?’ “What made him/her choose that?” and of course there is this problem with the general perception of tattoos in the first place. Consider the current tendency for some young women to have a tattoo applied to the small of their backs, just above their buttocks. There is a reason that this particular placement is universally known as a ‘tramp stamp.’ It has to do with public perception of tattoos in general, and THOSE tattoos specifically.

I haven’t ever taken that term seriously. I work with many tattoo’d individuals, none of whom I’d call a tramp. I might call them something else though.

So my comment was a wry joke at the expense of those who SEE it, not a put down of your nephew’s wife. Dial it back.

Fair enough.

Oh, yes it is, just not about tattoos. I mean, really…look at all the aghast reaction when they find out we don’t wear crosses! Every culture has its 'rules…" and signals of belonging. Catholics are no different. It’s a human thing, a mark of association thing.

The cross has been used by Christians as a symbol of Christian belief, and a way of identifying oneself as Christian, since the beginning. It is all over the NT. To reject the cross as a symbol, and call yourself Christian, is about the same as rejecting the American flag while calling yourself an American.

There are just certain things that are known within a community that are accepted; Americans don’t know the second verse of the Star Spangled Banner, and Mormons don’t generally have tattoos–and frankly, I don’t know how you would tell the above joke using something that would immediately identify a Catholic to you, but I’ll bet you anything there is something.

I can’t think of anything at the moment.

Quite possibly…and quite possibly it has something to do with her finding her faith…who knows? I’m just saying that if she were raised in a strict Mormon home, and adhered to all the Mormon more’s and customs, that cross wouldn’t be where, and what, it is. It just wouldn’t happen. I’m just saying that there is a story there, and one, as you say, that is worth the hearing.

I think you were saying there is some gossip there.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

If you want to self identify yourself as an anti-Mormon, fine…but may I take a quick poll?

If you can answer ‘yes’ to the following questions, I will agree with you that you are an anti:

Do you get your information about other religions from people who hate them rather than from the representatives of those religions? Actually I get my info from both and from independent sources.

Do you read, or distribute, publications critical of those religions? INo not unless asked about it.

Do you argue with them about what their beliefs really are, and use insulting language to do it? I try to never be insulting

If someone tells you that 'no, we really believe this" after you claim that they believe ‘that,’ do you refuse to accept that they know more about their beliefs than you do and change your claim?NO if they state something other than what I have read then I ask for them to provide supporting statements from there church other wise it maybe they just differ from what the teaching really is. Being Catholic I have seen that happen.

Do you, after having been corrected about something, ignore it because it works better for you if you do?NO if I am proven wrong then I am wrong or had received false info

Do you picket, shout at, or otherwise demonstrate at their meeting places or events? No that is for hate filled people. I do not hate.

Do you present their beliefs in a negative way whenever you can, even though neutral language would be better? (for instance, a critic of the Catholic church might say “Catholics believe in transubstantiation; that Christ Himself is present in the Eucharist, it’s not just a symbol” and an anti would say “Catholics are cannibals; they eat their own god!”) yes there are time when I have been know to do this, It is not something i am proud of and I do work and keep a watchful eye to prevent it.

Do you go out of your way to insult people of other faiths? I try not to be insult of anyone

Do you begin conversations with people of other religions, and do so by being critical of their beliefs, way of life or works, rather than wait until they begin the conversation and you defend your own? No I most of the time ask questions and explain my faith

If you say ‘yes’ to ANY of the above, you might be an anti. If you say ‘yes’ to three or more, you definitely are, and if you say ‘yes’ to all of 'em, you are the worst sort of bigoted anti.

I’ve met a few of those. Don’t like 'em. They don’t represent their own faith very well at all.

I am not sure that my answers prove one way or the other as to if I am Anti Mormon. I don’t sugar coat, but I strive to not be hurtful. I regards to Mormonism there is almost nothing that is agree with as to the teaching about God so in discussions with Mormons or others about Mormonism I am not going to be very agreeable to the Mormon stance. This is true of the JW’s and SDA, as well. I am opposed to Mormon doctrine as will if asked will state so and why I am. That does not mean that I can not talk to Mormons, work with them what ever. It just means that if we talk about religion odds are we will line up on opposing sides.

I will say that there are one or 2 that post here that I do no care for and it has nothing to do with them being Moron more to do with the way they conduct themselves and avoid direct answers to question or become irrationally Catholic bashing. I have learn to quest ignore them I dont respond to there post and wish other would do the same.

 

[pnewton]

But to use the word as a pejorative in order to express your disgust and personal distaste for our beliefs?

Yep, that’s being an anti.

Sorry about that.

Interesting. You have not defined the word “pejorative” and use both “disgust” and “distaste” when I have used “opinion”.

It is not an easy task, is it. I think that is the best answer to the OP. Perhaps Zenarius has the best approach and that we simply not worry about being politically correct and embrace the terms, while recognizing their emotional content.

FYI - I do not think LDS meets all the criteria of a cult, only some, and even some of these are subjective.

 

[dianaiad]

Do you have a short reply for anything?

no.

 

[Zundrah]

no.

Mormons do not have a short reply for anything! Even jesus in the book of mormon goes on, and on, and on, and on…

Christ; “Verily, verily I say unto you, do not have a short reply to any thing when you are speaking for me!” (not official scripture but something I just made up.)

 

[dianaiad]

Mormons do not have a short reply for anything! Even jesus in the book of mormon goes on, and on, and on, and on…

Christ; “Verily, verily I say unto you, do not have a short reply to any thing when you are speaking for me!” (not official scripture but something I just made up.)

There’s that mud puddle approach again, Zundrah.

 

[Zundrah]

There’s that mud puddle approach again, Zundrah.

I am sorry… forgive me please.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yea verily, it was a good point. And it came to pass that Joseph Smith put many superfluous “yea verily”, “and it came to pass”, in his new “scriptures”. Yea verily, as he wanted his 1830 writings to sound like the voice of God. And it came to pass that Smith used “and it camed to pass” 1297 in his Book of Mormon.

 

[dianaiad]

I am sorry… forgive me please.

S’ok…consider it a code phrase.

 

[Zundrah]

Did you get what you wanted from this thread in the end? I mean, do you believe that Mormons and Catholics get along fine?

 

[Zundrah]

Yea verily, it was a good point. And it came to pass that Joseph Smith put many superfluous “yea verily”, “and it came to pass”, in his new “scriptures”. Yea verily, as he wanted his 1830 writings to sound like the voice of God. And it came to pass that Smith used “and it camed to pass” 1297 in his Book of Mormon.

Hmmmm, so it is obvious that you have read the book of Mormon Rebecca? When and why?

 

[twopekinguys]

Hmmmm, so it is obvious that you have read the book of Mormon Rebecca? When and why?

If my memory serves me correctly, Rebecca J is a former Mormon, and is now Catholic. I also believe she may have gone through an agnostic period between the two.

I believe she provides a very unique, personal, and passionate perspective to these discussions, and I for one thank her for that.

(Rebecca, I apologize if I spoke out of turn )

 

[Jerusha]

Perhaps the problem with the term “anti-Mormon” has more to do with the climate of “political correctness” in this country. People do not feel themselves free to speak out about the abuses of Mormonism because then they get accused of bigotry.

I am opposed to racism, white privilege, prosperity theology, hereditary resentments, sexism, homophobia, religious bigotry, legislation against acts that do not adversely affect others, and theocracy.

If many LDS have these characteristics, surely I have the right to examine their literature and culture to find out why???

 

[Zundrah]

If my memory serves me correctly, Rebecca J is a former Mormon, and is now Catholic. I also believe she may have gone through an agnostic period between the two.

I believe she provides a very unique, personal, and passionate perspective to these discussions, and I for one thank her for that.

(Rebecca, I apologize if I spoke out of turn )

She use to be a mormon but now she is catholic again? How do people manage to do this stuff…?