Anti-Mormons

[Finrock]

Good afternoon zerinus! I hope your day has been better than is being reflect in your posts.

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 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.

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

For whatever reason, it appears that your posts are unreasonably harsh towards Nayrb. Or, perhaps you are justified, but I’m just not seeing it. Then again, maybe he really is just curious to know why Mormons jump the gun sometimes in calling people anti-Mormons. In my experience, it seems to be a legitimate concern. This would appear to be a case in point, unless of course I’m missing some piece of data here!

In any case, as far as I can see, your posts to Naybr have been irrational and completely unnecessary in their bitterness. I’m sure you don’t need “any strictures” from me either, nonetheless, I’m going to publically denounce your public and irrational attack on Nayrb.

What’s funny is that, even though you post with a certain…passion, your posts are generally reasonable, fair, and helpful. You ought to stick with your usual decorum.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

Depends when you are here, as I’m headed out for vacation myself in July. :extrahappy:

I know JJ’s. Unfortunately, until your church finishes its mall project, there aren’t any restaurant choices near the LDS church complex. :hammering:

 

[Zundrah]

Count me in!

That counts two, my friend!

 

[Zundrah]

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

…just out of curiosity, do you know what Murdock actually means?
It is a evil God that people worshiped in old biblical times! But you probably know that.
P.S. Can you tell me why the Mormon churches often don’t have any crosses in them?

 

[dianaiad]

Depends when you are here, as I’m headed out for vacation myself in July. :extrahappy:

I know JJ’s. Unfortunately, until your church finishes its mall project, there aren’t any restaurant choices near the LDS church complex. :hammering:

I know. It’s SCARY up there.

The church is very heavily involved, true, but it’s not all us. You know that, right?

(sigh) At least, once it’s done, there will be parking.

 

[dianaiad]

…just out of curiosity, do you know what Murdock actually means?
It is a evil God that people worshiped in old biblical times! But you probably know that.
P.S. Can you tell me why the Mormon churches often don’t have any crosses in them?

Mormon churches never have crosses in them, Zundrah. Nor do Mormons, as a rule, wear them.

One of the reasons is a statement you made earlier: “even atheists wear [crosses]”

We prefer to keep the symbology of the cross sharp; His sacrifice and death on the cross is supposed to be horrific in nature, and it is supposed to remind us of that sacrifice. If the cross is worn by people who couldn’t care less, or even by those who mock it–and that’s OK with you, then why is it not OK with you for people to NOT wear it because we respect its meaning too much?

Another reason is that we concentrate upon the living Christ, the resurrected Christ.

A third is…custom. There is no inherent religious prohibition against wearing a cross; if someone gives me one in love, I’ll wear it because of its meaning and what it means to the giver. I will not, however, go buy one or simply wear it as a pretty accessory. I have too many students who wear very big ones as part of their gang attire–it would be, to me, a demeaning of the symbol and of His sacrifice.

It is not all that obvious to the outsider, but Mormons are as dependent upon symbols as Catholics are. However, we internalize those symbols; they are reminders for us personally, not articles for public display. Not that there is anything wrong with the public display sincerely meant; it’s just that we don’t do it that way.

 

[zerinus]

Good afternoon zerinus! I hope your day has been better than is being reflect in your posts.

For whatever reason, it appears that your posts are unreasonably harsh towards Nayrb. Or, perhaps you are justified, but I’m just not seeing it. Then again, maybe he really is just curious to know why Mormons jump the gun sometimes in calling people anti-Mormons. In my experience, it seems to be a legitimate concern. This would appear to be a case in point, unless of course I’m missing some piece of data here!

In any case, as far as I can see, your posts to Naybr have been irrational and completely unnecessary in their bitterness. I’m sure you don’t need “any strictures” from me either, nonetheless, I’m going to publically denounce your public and irrational attack on Nayrb.

What’s funny is that, even though you post with a certain…passion, your posts are generally reasonable, fair, and helpful. You ought to stick with your usual decorum.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Thank you Finrock for your comments. You may have a point; but I have heard that argument from the “antis” quite a lot. They are very hypocritical. They say all kinds of nasty things about the Church; and then they turn around and object to being called “anti-Mormon”. The argument that they always put forward is that they are against “Mormonism,” and not against “Mormons,” therefore they shouldn’t be called “anti-Mormon”! There is a certain hypocrisy in that. First of all, by “anti-Mormon” we mean somebody who is against the Church, not against Mormons. If they admit that they are against the Church, why should they object to being called anti-Mormon? That shows their hypocrisy. Secondly, Mormonism and Mormons are inseparably tied up together. There wouldn’t be any Mormonism without Mormons. It is the Mormons that make up Mormonism. If you are against Mormonism, then you are also against Mormons.

On the subject of the OP, I simply do not agree that disagreeing with something is the same as opposing it. I disagree with many aspects of Catholic theology; but that does not mean that I “oppose” Catholicism or the Catholic Church. The two are just not the same. I very much respect the Catholic Church and regard it as a great institution. I can disagree with Catholic theology without rising up in “opposition” to the Catholic Church—and I don’t. Anybody who “opposes” my religion, opposes me.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I have too many students who wear very big ones as part of their gang attire–it would be, to me, a demeaning of the symbol and of His sacrifice.

“Augustine answered this fallacious reasoning sixteen centuries ago by teaching that “abuse does not negate use.” Improper use of an object does not mean we abandon its proper use–and so we Catholics will reject Protestant prejudice and will continue to place upon ourselves the holy sign of the Triune God.” (The Sign of the Cross)

 

[dianaiad]

“Augustine answered this fallacious reasoning sixteen centuries ago by teaching that “abuse does not negate use.” Improper use of an object does not mean we abandon its proper use–and so we Catholics will reject Protestant prejudice and will continue to place upon ourselves the holy sign of the Triune God.” (The Sign of the Cross)

By the exact same reasoning, Rebecca, the lack of use does not mean abuse, either. It is the reason behind either that counts, not the thing itself. So, if we choose not to wear the cross because we respect the concept it represents, that is no more reprehensible than choosing to wear one because you respect the concept it represents.

 

[RebeccaJ]

By the exact same reasoning, Rebecca, the lack of use does not mean abuse, either. It is the reason behind either that counts, not the thing itself. So, if we choose not to wear the cross because we respect the concept it represents, that is no more reprehensible than choosing to wear one because you respect the concept it represents.

Well, after a baby shower I went to this week, for and with my Mormon family, I’d say you’re old fashioned. Behind the times. As the newest inlaw, my nephews wife, is sporting a very colorful tattoo of a cross in the middle of her upper back. They were married in a Mormon temple not more than 6 months ago.

 

[Nayrb]

Thank you Finrock for your comments. You may have a point; but I have heard that argument from the “antis” quite a lot. They are very hypocritical. They say all kinds of nasty things about the Church; and then they turn around and object to being called “anti-Mormon”. The argument that they always put forward is that they are against “Mormonism,” and not against “Mormons,” therefore they shouldn’t be called “anti-Mormon”! There is a certain hypocrisy in that. First of all, by “anti-Mormon” we mean somebody who is against the Church, not against Mormons. If they admit that they are against the Church, why should they object to being called anti-Mormon? That shows their hypocrisy. Secondly, Mormonism and Mormons are inseparably tied up together. There wouldn’t be any Mormonism without Mormons. It is the Mormons that make up Mormonism. If you are against Mormonism, then you are also against Mormons.

On the subject of the OP, I simply do not agree that disagreeing with something is the same as opposing it. I disagree with many aspects of Catholic theology; but that does not mean that I “oppose” Catholicism or the Catholic Church. The two are just not the same. I very much respect the Catholic Church and regard it as a great institution. I can disagree with Catholic theology without rising up in “opposition” to the Catholic Church—and I don’t. Anybody who “opposes” my religion, opposes me.

It seems you and I were merely talking past each other. I’m sorry for my words which facilitated the misunderstanding.

As it stands, I disagree with quite a bit of your theology (as you presumably disagree with quite a bit of mine). I make it no point in badgering Mormons, indeed I even respect the devotion which at times (sadly) seems to be almost unique to Mormons. I don’t, however, keep quiet when the topic is brought up.

What initially prompted me to start this thread was an experience I had two weeks ago. I had a Mormon buddy over when two Missionaries came to my door. I invited them in and we had a rigorous discussion. After it was all over, my friend ask me “why * have to be such an anti-Mormon”. Considering that I didn’t berate or belittle the missionaries, use nonsense such as “the Godmakers” as a source to my arguments, or in any way imply that the LDS church is purposefully being deceitful, I felt the assertion by my friend was baseless.*

 

[dianaiad]

Well, after a baby shower I went to this week, for and with my Mormon family, I’d say you’re old fashioned. Behind the times. As the newest inlaw, my nephews wife, is sporting a very colorful tattoo of a cross in the middle of her upper back. They were married in a Mormon temple not more than 6 months ago.

Oh, I"ll bet that caused some consternation in the bride’s room! (Grin)

Your nephew’s wife has a story to tell, doesn’t she?

 

[cthulhubryan]

Having lived in Utah quite some time I would say also that anti-mormons are generally haters.

Utah Lighthouse Ministries could be called anti-Mormon.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Your nephew’s wife has a story to tell, doesn’t she?

ummm, this seems like a loaded question, but you sort of lost me.

 

[dianaiad]

Having lived in Utah quite some time I would say also that anti-mormons are generally haters.

Utah Lighthouse Ministries could be called anti-Mormon.

Oh, yeah, I’d say so.

 

[dianaiad]

ummm, this seems like a loaded question, but you sort of lost me.

Well, there she is, having just completely shattered two VERY strong Mormon cultural biases…a cross and a tattoo…and both in one?

(grin)

I can only think that she either is a convert, or she did some rebelling when she was younger–or she is a South Sea Islander with a seriously skewed sense of humor…

Tatoos are a no-no generally, rather like cremation. While neither one is doctrinally forbidden, they are not considered, well…Mormon. These biases do not, of course, apply to cultures where either one is important to the culture or legally required. Maoris, for instance–South Sea Islanders in general, come to think of it (for the tatoos) and certain native American tribes require cremation, as to certain nations.

Wow, talk about a thread digression!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well, there she is, having just completely shattered two VERY strong Mormon cultural biases…a cross and a tattoo…and both in one?

(grin)

I can only think that she either is a convert, or she did some rebelling when she was younger–or she is a South Sea Islander with a seriously skewed sense of humor…

Tatoos are a no-no generally, rather like cremation. While neither one is doctrinally forbidden, they are not considered, well…Mormon. These biases do not, of course, apply to cultures where either one is important to the culture or legally required. Maoris, for instance–South Sea Islanders in general, come to think of it (for the tatoos) and certain native American tribes require cremation, as to certain nations.

Wow, talk about a thread digression!

Dunno Diana, as, I don’t really have all these biases about tattoos or crosses. I know many Christians who have and use both, who were never in rebellion, or are South Sea Islanders. Now I think, poor girl, having to have every Mormon see her tattoo and start going through this litany that you describe in their head. “What did she do wrong in her life?”

Catholicism just isn’t that way. People are who they are and who cares if anyone has a tattoo. I tend to ask people what they mean to them, because often a tattoo is associated to something important in a person’s life. One very hardened Vietnam vet I met once, was in tears telling me about his.

As far as I know, my niece is a nice girl who married my goofy nephew. I don’t know her well, at all, as they met and were married 2 seconds later (as RMs tend to do). Maybe someday when I know her better I’ll ask her about her tattoo. It is very beautiful, I think perhaps it might have a beautiful story to go with it.

 

[zerinus]

It seems you and I were merely talking past each other. I’m sorry for my words which facilitated the misunderstanding.

As it stands, I disagree with quite a bit of your theology (as you presumably disagree with quite a bit of mine). I make it no point in badgering Mormons, indeed I even respect the devotion which at times (sadly) seems to be almost unique to Mormons. I don’t, however, keep quiet when the topic is brought up.

What initially prompted me to start this thread was an experience I had two weeks ago. I had a Mormon buddy over when two Missionaries came to my door. I invited them in and we had a rigorous discussion. After it was all over, my friend ask me “why * have to be such an anti-Mormon”. Considering that I didn’t berate or belittle the missionaries, use nonsense such as “the Godmakers” as a source to my arguments, or in any way imply that the LDS church is purposefully being deceitful, I felt the assertion by my friend was baseless.*

The word “anti-” implies “opposition” of some kind. If you “oppose” Mormonism, then you are anti-Mormon in my book. 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.

 

[dianaiad]

Dunno Diana, as, I don’t really have all these biases about tattoos or crosses. I know many Christians who have and use both, who were never in rebellion, or are South Sea Islanders. Now I think, poor girl, having to have every Mormon see her tattoo and start going through this litany that you describe in their head. “What did she do wrong in her life?”

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.

So if your nephew’s bride is in the TEMPLE, about to get married, her attendants are going to know, first, that whatever she did in her life before she got there doesn’t matter worth didley squat; she’s in the Temple. She has a recommend, obviously, and she could be Ray Bradbury’s “illustrated lady” and it wouldn’t matter. However, given our culture, the attendants are going to (mentally) raise eyebrows and wonder a little. They won’t, of course, ASK…it’s none of their business and it doesn’t matter.

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.

Catholicism just isn’t that way.

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.

It’s like, oh…I don’t know if you remember that old joke about the American soldier caught behind enemy lines so that he was not told the password for the day? When the sentry asked him what it was, he said he didn’t know it. So the sentry asked him to sing the second verse of the National Anthem, and the soldier said “go ahead, shoot me…I don’t know that either!”

Whereupon the sentry said “Pass, 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.

People are who they are and who cares if anyone has a tattoo. I tend to ask people what they mean to them, because often a tattoo is associated to something important in a person’s life. One very hardened Vietnam vet I met once, was in tears telling me about his.

As far as I know, my niece is a nice girl who married my goofy nephew. I don’t know her well, at all, as they met and were married 2 seconds later (as RMs tend to do). Maybe someday when I know her better I’ll ask her about her tattoo. It is very beautiful, I think perhaps it might have a beautiful story to go with it.

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.

 

[Finrock]

Thank you Finrock for your comments.

You are welcome.

You may have a point; but I have heard that argument from the “antis” quite a lot. They are very hypocritical. They say all kinds of nasty things about the Church; and then they turn around and object to being called “anti-Mormon”. The argument that they always put forward is that they are against “Mormonism,” and not against “Mormons,” therefore they shouldn’t be called “anti-Mormon”! There is a certain hypocrisy in that. First of all, by “anti-Mormon” we mean somebody who is against the Church, not against Mormons. If they admit that they are against the Church, why should they object to being called anti-Mormon? That shows their hypocrisy. Secondly, Mormonism and Mormons are inseparably tied up together. There wouldn’t be any Mormonism without Mormons. It is the Mormons that make up Mormonism. If you are against Mormonism, then you are also against Mormons.

I understand what you are saying, and I’ve witnessed some of this too at times. Those few who I truly would consider “anti-Mormon” seem to do what you describe while at the same time displaying what can only be understood (based on their conduct up to that point) as false sincerity for the welfare of your soul. Anyways, unfortunately stuff like this is out there. Fortunately, however, I’ve only come across just a few true anti-Mormons. Most critics I think disagree, but aren’t “haters” so to speak.

Kind Regards,
Finrock