Anti-Mormons

[dianaiad]

I am anti Mormon. I am also anti Baptist, Methodist, SDA, Lutheran, Atheist, ETC…
there are a good many things that I am anti in my stance. It does not mean that I dislike the people that are apart of these organizations it means I think these organizations are in error a great many things.

Being anti or opposed to something does not mean you dislike the members of those groups. There are people on this forum that are not catholic that I am very found of and have great respect for I also think they are wrong. It is fine to oppose one another, It is not fine to do so in a hateful way. There are those on here that almost force you to be hateful towards them and it is best to just not read there post or at least act as if you don’t

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?

Do you read, or distribute, publications critical of those religions?

Do you argue with them about what their beliefs really are, and use insulting language to do it?

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?

Do you, after having been corrected about something, ignore it because it works better for you if you do?

Do you picket, shout at, or otherwise demonstrate at their meeting places or events?

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!”)

Do you go out of your way to insult people of other faiths?

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?

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.

 

[dianaiad]

I’m old, leave me alone…

(snerk…)

 

[zerinus]

That depends on what s/he is willing to do in the service of that opposition. I think that one can be opposed to the church and not be an 'anti…" (in terms of this particular use of it, anyway)

I don’t know if there is a standardized “dictionary definition” of anti-Mormonism. I think there are probably as many definitions as there are Mormons and anti-Mormons. The definition I gave is my definition. That is what I go by. You are free to your own definition if you like. But for my own purpose, I would rather stick to the one I had given.

 

[twopekinguys]

Woah, Z…

Rebecca is very strongly opinionated. At the moment I’m not all THAT certain she would want to have a soda with me–but if she is an anti, then I’m a Vogue cover model who doesn’t need an airbrush.

You want anti’s? Well, Ed Decker qualifies, as does Walter Martin…on THIS forum, Zundrah’s posts do settle squarely in that area, and a couple of other posters certainly dance the dance, but Rebecca?

Very opinionated critic. Annoying at times, I’ll grant you, but an anti?

Nah.

I can’t see her, for instance, blocking the way into a Temple while waving Temple Garments and copies of 'The Godmakers" in our faces. Sorry, I just can’t envision that.

I think that was very gracious

 

[zerinus]

I am anti Mormon. I am also anti Baptist, Methodist, SDA, Lutheran, Atheist, ETC…
there are a good many things that I am anti in my stance. It does not mean that I dislike the people that are apart of these organizations it means I think these organizations are in error a great many things.

Being anti or opposed to something does not mean you dislike the members of those groups. There are people on this forum that are not catholic that I am very found of and have great respect for I also think they are wrong. It is fine to oppose one another, It is not fine to do so in a hateful way. There are those on here that almost force you to be hateful towards them and it is best to just not read there post or at least act as if you don’t

That is how anti-Mormons like to whitewash their anti-Mormonism. They think the rest of the world is stupid. When you are anti- something that I hold deeply sacred and is dear to my heart, and which I try to pattern my life on, then you are anti-me, no matter how much you try to whitewash it otherwise. I am not anti- anything. I am not anti-Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Muslim, Jewish, even atheist. I respect their faiths, and their rights to believe as they do. I am not anti- anybody’s religion. I wouldn’t try to eradicate their religion if I had the power to. If somebody is anti- my religion, he is anti-me.

 

[Nayrb]

That depends on what s/he is willing to do in the service of that opposition. I think that one can be opposed to the church and not be an 'anti…" (in terms of this particular use of it, anyway)

Thank you for your explanation. It makes sense and resonates well with me. It might have something to do with experience in apologetics as well.

You, presumably a Mormon, are here on a Catholic apologetics website. That tells me that you have experience in defending your faith and actively put yourself into a position of doing so. Considering all this, it makes sense the definition of ‘anti-Mormon’ you gave. When I’ve been called an ‘anti-Mormon’, it was in person, usually in a context where religion accidentally, rather than purposefully, came up. This might explain the defensiveness of these other people’s definition, wouldn’t you agree?

I’d say my experience of the definition given for ‘anti-Mormon’ by my Mormon acquaintances is similar if not identical to the ridiculously simple one Zerinus gave.

 

[Nayrb]

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

I know that this was addressed to another user, but considering that I’m the OP, I’ve been called an anti-Mormon before, I think it might be beneficial for me to answer this poll as well.

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

A “Yes” answer to any of these questions makes for an anti-Mormon, or “Yes” answers to all of these makes for one?

Do you get your information about other religions from people who hate them rather than from the representatives of those religions?

From those who hate? Absolutely not. Those who might disagree with their theology I’ll use as a starting resource, but I do my best to confirm anything said with first hand accounts. My priest told me about the “Adam-God doctrine” (first source). At the time I was going to the LDS seminary with friends early in the morning so I asked the seminary teacher there if my priest was correct in his assessment.

Do you read, or distribute, publications critical of those religions?

I’ll read anything given to me, so yes I’ve read some very nasty things about Mormons. Doesn’t mean I agree with them. I certainly don’t distribute them.

Do you argue with them about what their beliefs really are, and use insulting language to do it?

No. I’m not presumptuous enough to tell you what you believe. The one good thing I’ve learned from people who are virulently critical of Catholicism is that I don’t much like being told that I “worship Mary and the Pope”

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?

Yes, for the most part. If I know of other sources which seem to disagree with what they’re telling me, I’ll then bring those up and ask them for their (name removed by moderator)ut on those. I’ll agree that individual people know 100% what they themselves believe, but lay people can at times misspeak for their church. I’ve been corrected by Protestants over what the Catholic Church teaches and I’m grateful that they showed me Catholic sources disproving me.

Do you, after having been corrected about something, ignore it because it works better for you if you do?

Absolutely not.

Do you picket, shout at, or otherwise demonstrate at their meeting places or events?

Absolutely not.

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!”)

Absolutely not. The latter without a doubt is bearing false witness.

-Do you go out of your way to insult people of other faiths?

Absolutely not.

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?

This one depends on setting. Here on an internet forum for which the purpose is to start such conversations, I don’t see anything wrong with that. I certainly don’t go to my next door neighbor’s house, knock on the door and pick a fight though .

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 said maybe to quite a few. Does that make me an insecure anti-Mormon? hehe.

 

[Nayrb]

You seem to be giving inconsistent definitions here Zerinus:

That is not hard. Anybody who is opposed to Mormonism (the Church) is anti-Mormon.

That is how anti-Mormons like to whitewash their anti-Mormonism. They think the rest of the world is stupid. When you are anti- something that I hold deeply sacred and is dear to my heart, and which I try to pattern my life on, then you are anti-me, no matter how much you try to whitewash it otherwise. I am not anti- anything. I am not anti-Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Muslim, Jewish, even atheist. I respect their faiths, and their rights to believe as they do. I am not anti- anybody’s religion. I wouldn’t try to eradicate their religion if I had the power to. If somebody is anti- my religion, he is anti-me.

So essentially anyone who isn’t Mormon is not only an anti-Mormon, but is anti-Zerinus, anti-Dianaiad, etc?

I seem to fit your definition of anti-Mormon for I am, indeed, opposed to your church. I don’t agree with it. If I did agree with it, I would be a Mormon. I however am not opposed to you as a person (or any other Mormon for that matter). It seems to me you’re making for yourself your own enemies.

 

[dianaiad]

Thank you for your explanation. It makes sense and resonates well with me. It might have something to do with experience in apologetics as well.

You, presumably a Mormon, are here on a Catholic apologetics website. That tells me that you have experience in defending your faith and actively put yourself into a position of doing so. Considering all this, it makes sense the definition of ‘anti-Mormon’ you gave. When I’ve been called an ‘anti-Mormon’, it was in person, usually in a context where religion accidentally, rather than purposefully, came up. This might explain the defensiveness of these other people’s definition, wouldn’t you agree?

I’d say my experience of the definition given for ‘anti-Mormon’ by my Mormon acquaintances is similar if not identical to the ridiculously simple one Zerinus gave.

You have a point about actively “putting myself into a position of defending [my] faith.”

I think it does give me a little different view point, since I"m more likely to encounter simple critics than the average Mormon. Here’s the thing: outside of forums and debates, if I am accosted by those who want to discuss Mormonism with me, it is almost inevitably an ‘anti’ doing it. He will be shoving an anti-Mormon pamphlet at me, or will be picketing my meetings or attempting to block access to the Temple, or putting pamphlets under my windshield, or shouting stupidities at me, or making some incredibly offensive and stupid comment.

Mere critics, avoid that sort of thing, y’know. They go to where they can engage in conversation with people who are willing and ready to engage with them. They don’t blindside people.

When someone has dealt with this sort of thing often enough, they get a little nervous.

 

[dianaiad]

I know that this was addressed to another user, but considering that I’m the OP, I’ve been called an anti-Mormon before, I think it might be beneficial for me to answer this poll as well.

A “Yes” answer to any of these questions makes for an anti-Mormon, or “Yes” answers to all of these makes for one?

I said maybe to quite a few. Does that make me an insecure anti-Mormon? hehe.

Actually, in sum I would say ‘no.’ Most of the time.

 

[zerinus]

So essentially anyone who isn’t Mormon is not only an anti-Mormon, but is anti-Zerinus, anti-Dianaiad, etc?

If you want to play the idiot-card you can; but it won’t cut it with me. That is not what I meant, and I think you know it.

I seem to fit your definition of anti-Mormon for I am, indeed, opposed to your church. I don’t agree with it. If I did agree with it, I would be a Mormon.

“Opposing” something and not “agreeing with it” are two different things. I do not agree with a lot of Catholic theology; but that does not mean that I “oppose” Catholicism or the Catholic Church. To “oppose” it means to actively fight against it. You can disagree with it but still respect it. I disagree with some Catholic theology, but still respect it. Opposing and disagreeing are two very different things.

I however am not opposed to you as a person (or any other Mormon for that matter). It seems to me you’re making for yourself your own enemies.

Don’t give me that kind nonsense. See my previous reply to oneGODoneCHURCH. That reply applies to you too.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

That is how anti-Mormons like to whitewash their anti-Mormonism. They think the rest of the world is stupid. When you are anti- something that I hold deeply sacred and is dear to my heart, and which I try to pattern my life on, then you are anti-me, no matter how much you try to whitewash it otherwise. I am not anti- anything. I am not anti-Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Muslim, Jewish, even atheist. I respect their faiths, and their rights to believe as they do. I am not anti- anybody’s religion. I wouldn’t try to eradicate their religion if I had the power to. If somebody is anti- my religion, he is anti-me.

I think the trouble with written forums is that some people think they can say ANYTHING to other people and not care how they feel. I don’t think that normally, people would act like that face to face with another human being, unless they were extremely disfunctional. It’s fine to argue ideas, but not in a nasty, hurtful, arrogant way without any respect for the other’s beliefs. And religious beliefs are very central to our hearts and who we are.

Most of the Mormons here are very respectful of Catholics, but some of the Catholics here are rather hateful to the Mormons. Actually, Zerinus, you are quite funny because you hit back sometimes, and I can see why you do!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Woah, Z…

Rebecca is very strongly opinionated. At the moment I’m not all THAT certain she would want to have a soda with me–but if she is an anti, then I’m a Vogue cover model who doesn’t need an airbrush.

You want anti’s? Well, Ed Decker qualifies, as does Walter Martin…on THIS forum, Zundrah’s posts do settle squarely in that area, and a couple of other posters certainly dance the dance, but Rebecca?

Very opinionated critic. Annoying at times, I’ll grant you, but an anti?

Nah.

I can’t see her, for instance, blocking the way into a Temple while waving Temple Garments and copies of 'The Godmakers" in our faces. Sorry, I just can’t envision that.

ha. Yes, I’d have a soda with you. I can’t believe you were in SLC and didn’t.

zerinus is only being zerinus. If you want to talk anti, he is anti-Catholic. He pretends to be nice to Catholics here, as long as he thinks he might have a fish on the line. As soon as he realizes he does not, his true colors come shinging through.

 

[zerinus]

I think the trouble with written forums is that some people think they can say ANYTHING to other people and not care how they feel. I don’t think that normally, people would act like that face to face with another human being, unless they were extremely disfunctional. It’s fine to argue ideas, but not in a nasty, hurtful, arrogant way without any respect for the other’s beliefs. And religious beliefs are very central to our hearts and who we are.

Most of the Mormons here are very respectful of Catholics, but some of the Catholics here are rather hateful to the Mormons. Actually, Zerinus, you are quite funny because you hit back sometimes, and I can see why you do!

Thank you Christine for your comments. Fair and sensible as usual.

 

[dianaiad]

ha. Yes, I’d have a soda with you. I can’t believe you were in SLC and didn’t.

Next time, perhaps.

I’m headed up there in July to take in my daughter in “Man of La Mancha” and have promised Dad to take another whack at finding Mariah Seaman in the Family History Center. If you can wend your way through the picketers, I’ll be glad to have a soda with you at that overpriced and under customer serviced JJ"s on the corner .

I will admit, you can zap with the best…but that’s the fun part.

 

[Murdock]

Nayrb:

Reasonably and carefully used, the term “anti-Mormon”, which is knock off of the term “anti-Semitic”, ought to be confined to disparagement of the Mormon faith, the Mormon people or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, rather than being applied to those simply not sharing the beliefs of Latter-day Saints or disagreeing with positions (e.g., biblical interpretations) that LDS might advance. Some Mormons, apparently including some with whom you are acquainted, sometimes fail to distinguish between malicious disparagement and simple disagreement. However, as you are a Christian, before criticizing such LDS, it might be better for you to walk a mile in their shoes.

Having the church one loves, and the people of which one is a part, often referred to as a “cult”, and the beliefs of one’s heart referred to as “heresy” or “blasphemy” or “brainwashing”, having your prophet and your scripture referred to as “fraudulent”, having your identity as Christian scornfully disputed, having the word “cult” spray-painted on the side of your meetinghouse (explain that to your children), along with a sizeable effort by numerous religious organizations (overwhelmingly Protestant) on line and in print to convince potential converts that your religion is “satanic”, gives people a hair-trigger and indiscriminant edginess that might cause them to dismiss, as motivated by bigotry, what might have been intended as respectful disagreement.

A little common sense and a little common courtesy in choosing one’s words, combined with a little application of the Golden Rule, will suffice to eliminate reasonable claims that one is “anti-Mormon”, and a little care to spell out exactly where you are coming from (assuming that you are not a bigot) will go a long way to avoid the knee-jerk application of “anti-Mormon” to you. You may not be able to get all LDS that you know to accept that, but, if so,then that is their problem and not yours.

Also, consider: What is to be gained, really, by a Catholic telling me, as has actually occurred, that Joseph was not a prophet of God and that the Book of Mormon is not the word of God? I do not believe in the mystery of the Trinity, or the miracle of transubstantiation, but I see no point in my proclaiming that to Catholics.

–Murdock

 

[Nayrb]

If you want to play the idiot-card you can; but it won’t cut it with me. That is not what I meant, and I think you know it.

“Opposing” something and not “agreeing with it” are two different things. I do not agree with a lot of Catholic theology; but that does not mean that I “oppose” Catholicism or the Catholic Church. To “oppose” it means to actively fight against it. You can disagree with it but still respect it. I disagree with some Catholic theology, but still respect it. Opposing and disagreeing are two very different things.

That is certainly one definition of opposed, but it isn’t the only. I can oppose the teachings of your church without being opposed to your right to believe in and practice your religion, to the same extent that I might oppose a political platform/agenda. That doesn’t mean I hate you or in any other sense mean to make it personal.

You, Zerinus are making it personal, and you’re being quite offensive here. You posted two seemingly inconsistent things and I asked you about them. You the subtly implied that I’m “playing stupid”. If you are incapable or unwilling to have this discourse civilly I will have no problem placing you on ignore. I suggest you model your behavior after Dianaiad.

Don’t give me that kind nonsense. See my previous reply to oneGODoneCHURCH. That reply applies to you too.

Dude! This is the type of overly-sensitive defensiveness my OP is concerning. I don’t agree with your church. I don’t agree with your theology. I am indeed opposed to it. That doesn’t mean I have anything against your, or any other Mormon for that matter.

What’s really odd is that the argument you’re forwarding here is the same argument quite a few gay rights supporters are saying about you Mormons (which I equally disagree with). They argue that your being “anti-gay marriage” is reflective on them as people, that you somehow have some axe to grind with individual gay people.

 

[Nayrb]

Nayrb:

Reasonably and carefully used, the term “anti-Mormon”, which is knock off of the term “anti-Semitic”, ought to be confined to disparagement of the Mormon faith, the Mormon people or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, rather than being applied to those simply not sharing the beliefs of Latter-day Saints or disagreeing with positions (e.g., biblical interpretations) that LDS might advance. Some Mormons, apparently including some with whom you are acquainted, sometimes fail to distinguish between malicious disparagement and simple disagreement. However, as you are a Christian, before criticizing such LDS, it might be better for you to walk a mile in their shoes.

Having the church one loves, and the people of which one is a part, often referred to as a “cult”, and the beliefs of one’s heart referred to as “heresy” or “blasphemy” or “brainwashing”, having your prophet and your scripture referred to as “fraudulent”, having your identity as Christian scornfully disputed, having the word “cult” spray-painted on the side of your meetinghouse (explain that to your children), along with a sizeable effort by numerous religious organizations (overwhelmingly Protestant) on line and in print to convince potential converts that your religion is “satanic”, gives people a hair-trigger and indiscriminant edginess that might cause them to dismiss, as motivated by bigotry, what might have been intended as respectful disagreement.

A little common sense and a little common courtesy in choosing one’s words, combined with a little application of the Golden Rule, will suffice to eliminate reasonable claims that one is “anti-Mormon”, and a little care to spell out exactly where you are coming from (assuming that you are not a bigot) will go a long way to avoid the knee-jerk application of “anti-Mormon” to you. You may not be able to get all LDS that you know to accept that, but, if so,then that is their problem and not yours.

Also, consider: What is to be gained, really, by a Catholic telling me, as has actually occurred, that Joseph was not a prophet of God and that the Book of Mormon is not the word of God? I do not believe in the mystery of the Trinity, or the miracle of transubstantiation, but I see no point in my proclaiming that to Catholics.

–Murdock

Very thoughtful post here Murdock. Thank you. I agree that there’s little utility (and even less charity) in making simple belief statements. They don’t further a conversation. After assertion, nothing is accomplished.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Nayrb:

Reasonably and carefully used, the term “anti-Mormon”, which is knock off of the term “anti-Semitic”, ought to be confined to disparagement of the Mormon faith, the Mormon people or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, rather than being applied to those simply not sharing the beliefs of Latter-day Saints or disagreeing with positions (e.g., biblical interpretations) that LDS might advance. Some Mormons, apparently including some with whom you are acquainted, sometimes fail to distinguish between malicious disparagement and simple disagreement. However, as you are a Christian, before criticizing such LDS, it might be better for you to walk a mile in their shoes.

Having the church one loves, and the people of which one is a part, often referred to as a “cult”, and the beliefs of one’s heart referred to as “heresy” or “blasphemy” or “brainwashing”, having your prophet and your scripture referred to as “fraudulent”, having your identity as Christian scornfully disputed, having the word “cult” spray-painted on the side of your meetinghouse (explain that to your children), along with a sizeable effort by numerous religious organizations (overwhelmingly Protestant) on line and in print to convince potential converts that your religion is “satanic”, gives people a hair-trigger and indiscriminant edginess that might cause them to dismiss, as motivated by bigotry, what might have been intended as respectful disagreement.

A little common sense and a little common courtesy in choosing one’s words, combined with a little application of the Golden Rule, will suffice to eliminate reasonable claims that one is “anti-Mormon”, and a little care to spell out exactly where you are coming from (assuming that you are not a bigot) will go a long way to avoid the knee-jerk application of “anti-Mormon” to you. You may not be able to get all LDS that you know to accept that, but, if so,then that is their problem and not yours.

Also, consider: What is to be gained, really, by a Catholic telling me, as has actually occurred, that Joseph was not a prophet of God and that the Book of Mormon is not the word of God? I do not believe in the mystery of the Trinity, or the miracle of transubstantiation, but I see no point in my proclaiming that to Catholics.

–Murdock

Very well spoken!

 

[zerinus]

That is certainly one definition of opposed, but it isn’t the only. I can oppose the teachings of your church without being opposed to your right to believe in and practice your religion, . . .

Opposing something and disagreeing with it are two different things. When you have managed to get your head round that idea, come back to me and we will talk about it more.

I suggest you model your behavior after Dianaiad.

I don’t need any strictures from you, or from dianaiad thank you very much. She speaks for herself, not for me, or for the Church.

If you are incapable or unwilling to have this discourse civilly I will have no problem placing you on ignore.

Maybe that would be just as well. I have already put you on my anti-Mormon list.