CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

[Marcus]

And for those who are not easy targets, the Tanner's are a tremendous source of information

Really? I mean, I'm not saying they aren't a good source of information. Look at the first line of the review I quoted:

This is perhaps the most slanted, biased, and down right mean representation of the Mormon church there is. However, most of the stuff is true

Something strikes me as true about that assessment.

I will defer to you on this, as I have only sought out the Tanner's writings in very specific cases, and very late in the game. I read only the facts of whatever topic I am interested in, so I know next to nothing about the battle between religions. I haven't noticed a "downright mean" slant, but, like I said, I've only read for facts.

If providing the information they have were somehow repressed in the name of avoiding "attacking" a religion, as it has been defined here, in my opinion that would result only in an unnecessary and inappropriate supression of research.

I partially agree but I think we need to be careful.

Well of course. When has that ever not been the case when reading original research?

Let me step it up a notch here. Suppose there were somewhere in the world, a smart Trump supporter. You don't need to lie about the Haitians and say they're eating cats and dogs. You can meticulously study the Haitian culture in Springville, carefully cull through newspapers, carefully look over court records, and you can write a book documenting the crimes of Haitians, the negative ways in which Haitians have impacted Springville, no need to lie about anything, and produce a truly horrifying book that at the same time, is 100% true in a very shallow sense of the word true.

But it wouldn't be 'true' in the sense that their bias unduly and inappropriately dictated their presentation of material. That's what I mean by investigating and confirming facts as well as motivations. Kishkumen's opinion that the Tanner's are attacking a religion is something I would consider when evaluating research, but, in my opinion, it would never be acceptable to use that opinion as a way to somehow disparage the work or suggest it shouldn't be done, and especially not to suggest that the Tanner's work shouldn't be read. Bottom line for me, I rarely would consider investigating and writing something negative about a religion as something that shouldn't be done, on the grounds that one's favored religion shouldn't be 'attacked' by disagreement, or even vehement and angry disagreement. That's simply bias in the other direction, and equally unacceptable.

[I Have Questions]

Really? I mean, I'm not saying they aren't a good source of information. Look at the first line of the review I quoted:



Something strikes me as true about that assessment.

I will defer to you on this, as I have only sought out the Tanner's writings in very specific cases, and very late in the game. I read only the facts of whatever topic I am interested in, so I know next to nothing about the battle between religions. I haven't noticed a "downright mean" slant, but, like I said, I've only read for facts.

I partially agree but I think we need to be careful.

Well of course. When has that ever not been the case when reading original research?

Let me step it up a notch here. Suppose there were somewhere in the world, a smart Trump supporter. You don't need to lie about the Haitians and say they're eating cats and dogs. You can meticulously study the Haitian culture in Springville, carefully cull through newspapers, carefully look over court records, and you can write a book documenting the crimes of Haitians, the negative ways in which Haitians have impacted Springville, no need to lie about anything, and produce a truly horrifying book that at the same time, is 100% true in a very shallow sense of the word true.

But it wouldn't be 'true' in the sense that their bias unduly and inappropriately dictated their presentation of material. That's what I mean by investigating and confirming facts as well as motivations. Kishkumen's opinion that the Tanner's are attacking a religion is something I would consider when evaluating research, but, in my opinion, it would never be acceptable to use that opinion as a way to somehow disparage the work or suggest it shouldn't be done, and especially not to suggest that the Tanner's work shouldn't be read. Bottom line for me, I rarely would consider investigating and writing something negative about a religion as something that shouldn't be done, on the grounds that one's favored religion shouldn't be 'attacked' by disagreement, or even vehement and angry disagreement. That's simply bias in the other direction, and equally unacceptable.

I think Kishkumen’s position is very odd, illogical. He seems to be saying that Warren Jeff’s section of Mormonism should be exempted from criticism and attack by other Mormon sects, other Christian sects, and other religious groups. No matter the legitimacy of the criticism. That seems very similar to LDS Church Leaders counselling their own members not to criticise LDS Church Leaders even if that criticism is true. But his friends stealing a few confidential papers from a religion and gossiping them around is okay. I’m sorry but the mixed morals in Kishkumen’s position on this are staggering to me.

[Gadianton]

But it wouldn't be 'true' in the sense that their bias unduly and inappropriately dictated their presentation of material. That's what I mean by investigating and confirming facts as well as motivations. Kishkumen's opinion that the Tanner's are attacking a religion is something I would consider when evaluating research, but, in my opinion, it would never be acceptable to use that opinion as a way to somehow disparage the work or suggest it shouldn't be done,

With the exception of the bolded word it's easy for me to agree. Why not disparage a work attacking a religion? Saying it shouldn't be done is a little more aggressive. I can call out opinions for being immoral without saying they shouldn't be allowed to be expressed. At the far end of the spectrum is hate speech (a subjective call of course) that I might say actually shouldn't be allowed. The Tanners are an interesting case because they are a small shop in the heart of SLC Utah. They're the underdogs. I'd add to Facts + motivations: facts + motivations + power balance. The Tanners attacking a multi-billion dollar corporation in the middle of its stronghold does not in any way make Dan Peterson and Lou Midgley victims. When Lou Midgley shows up at their small shop with his boys to cause a scene and to intimidate, it's the Tanners who are the victims not the Mormons.

He seems to be saying that Warren Jeff’s section of Mormonism should be exempted from criticism and attack by other Mormon sects, other Christian sects, and other religious groups. No matter the legitimacy of the criticism. That seems very similar to LDS Church Leaders counselling their own members not to criticise LDS Church Leaders

Well, in cases of actual cults (small sealed off communities with abusive leaders), wrong as they may be, I think you have to be careful when it comes to executing on the process of exposing the truth. Was the military going in and blowing up Waco the best way to handle a situation? This is where balance of power should be considered, because it's not just the leaders living there. Plus -- once you get past certain basic facts about leaders taking advantage of kids, what's there to expose? Are you really going to write a point-by-point refutation to David Koresh's interpretations of the Bible?

A main issue I have with Evangelical anti-Mormonism is it strikes me as aligning very well with the propaganda aims of Christian Nationalists, which suddenly, is like a real issue.

[Marcus]

But it wouldn't be 'true' in the sense that their bias unduly and inappropriately dictated their presentation of material. That's what I mean by investigating and confirming facts as well as motivations. Kishkumen's opinion that the Tanner's are attacking a religion is something I would consider when evaluating research, but, in my opinion, it would never be acceptable to use that opinion as a way to somehow disparage the work or suggest it shouldn't be done,

With the exception of the bolded word it's easy for me to agree. Why not disparage a work attacking a religion?

Just to start with this first comment, I should have been more careful in my use, I meant disparage the facts of the work by using an ad hominem attack on the authors.

Also, I call it an ad hom attack because I don't agree the Tanner's work attacks a religion's people, it at best attacks the positions of a religion, if 'disagree with' or 'find false' means attack, but I can see the issue for someone approaching it as kish does.

[Gadianton]

Also, I call it an ad hom attack because I don't agree the Tanner's work attacks a religion's people, it at best attacks the positions of a religion, if 'disagree with' or 'find false' means attack, but I can see the issue for someone approaching it as kish does.

I don't have a great way of gauging the Tanners by what I have in mind here because they only wrote about Mormonism (to my knowledge), and counter-cultists usually spread their love around. Ed Decker gushes over the love he has for Mormons. I don't recall an anti-Mormon book or pamphlet ever saying Mormons are bad people or attacking them in the way the Trump campaign attacks immigrants directly.

I don't have a book example here, but I'll just leave it at the basic idea, and that is, attacking a religion can very much be read as attacking the people of the religion. The way to gauge to what degree you might accept or reject that, would be by what you make of a counter-cultists expositions of religions other than Mormonism. In one counter-cult book I thumbed through at an investigator's house on my mission, there was a section included on Hinduism. I can't recall the words exactly, but the summary ended with an exclamation point, and had something to do with the "8 million cows" that Hindus held sacred. I can only leave it as a thought experiment: if Sandra Tanner wrote a book exposing Hinduism, what kinds of things would it need to say to reach the threshold of attacking Hindus rather than Hinduism?

(by the way, I haven't read the whole thread and I'm not following Kish's disputes I'm just jumping in with my own thoughts on the latest posts. Kish and I have had disagreements on issues like this in the past, I don't expect we'd be fully in sync.)

[Kishkumen]

I think Kishkumen’s position is very odd, illogical. He seems to be saying that Warren Jeff’s section of Mormonism should be exempted from criticism and attack by other Mormon sects, other Christian sects, and other religious groups. No matter the legitimacy of the criticism. That seems very similar to LDS Church Leaders counselling their own members not to criticise LDS Church Leaders even if that criticism is true. But his friends stealing a few confidential papers from a religion and gossiping them around is okay. I’m sorry but the mixed morals in Kishkumen’s position on this are staggering to me.

OK, you have totally misread me here. Thanks for letting me know, however. Obviously, I need to do a better job if you came to the conclusion that I think criminality is above criticism just because it's religious criminality. For the record, I think all criminality should be criticized and punished in accordance with the law.

[Kishkumen]

Also, I call it an ad hom attack because I don't agree the Tanner's work attacks a religion's people, it at best attacks the positions of a religion, if 'disagree with' or 'find false' means attack, but I can see the issue for someone approaching it as kish does.

I don't have a great way of gauging the Tanners by what I have in mind here because they only wrote about Mormonism (to my knowledge), and counter-cultists usually spread their love around. Ed Decker gushes over the love he has for Mormons. I don't recall an anti-Mormon book or pamphlet ever saying Mormons are bad people or attacking them in the way the Trump campaign attacks immigrants directly.

I don't have a book example here, but I'll just leave it at the basic idea, and that is, attacking a religion can very much be read as attacking the people of the religion. The way to gauge to what degree you might accept or reject that, would be by what you make of a counter-cultists expositions of religions other than Mormonism. In one counter-cult book I thumbed through at an investigator's house on my mission, there was a section included on Hinduism. I can't recall the words exactly, but the summary ended with an exclamation point, and had something to do with the "8 million cows" that Hindus held sacred. I can only leave it as a thought experiment: if Sandra Tanner wrote a book exposing Hinduism, what kinds of things would it need to say to reach the threshold of attacking Hindus rather than Hinduism?

(by the way, I haven't read the whole thread and I'm not following Kish's disputes I'm just jumping in with my own thoughts on the latest posts. Kish and I have had disagreements on issues like this in the past, I don't expect we'd be fully in sync.)

Looks like you understand my position very well and have articulated it better than I did, Gad. It is interesting that we trust people attacking Mormonism when they say they love Mormons, but we see ex-Mo people here call Mormons sheeple and Morgbots on occasion. What are the chances that the Tanners love Mormons more than we do? I think the relationship between the Tanners and the Mormon people is a lot more complicated than their public face. Certainly they love Mormons enough to want to get them out of Mormonism. But what does that say of their love for people who stubbornly remain Mormons? Is it something like how much the Mormons love the new move-ins next door until they figure they are not interested in converting to Mormonism? I don't think that the Tanners believe they hate anyone, but, again, it is complicated, and it may be the case that their campaign against Mormonism has not actually improved the lives of the people they claim to love.

[Kishkumen]

But you believe that secular folks can attack any religion they want, and that is Okay? An atheist, like yourself (I assume)....can in your opinion attack religion then?

As I have said numerous times on this board, I am not an atheist. I think everyone has a right to free speech for the time being. I take less issue with ex-LDS agnostics and atheists criticizing Mormonism because I think it's their prerogative to work through their separation from Mormonism and religion. Those folks who have found a new faith home ought to enjoy their new faith and leave their old one alone. After all, Mormons are Christians, and anyone is free to share their religion with others, to spread the good word, if you will. Stoking hatred for another branch of Christianity is hypocritical and detrimental.

But, listen, I fully support the Tanners' right to do and say things I do not agree with. It is not like I have any desire to curtail their rights. I just don't agree with what they are doing/did.

And RFM does not...and Reel does not, and Mormons join their non faith, and that is okay....Again, my hypocrisy only goes so far is this topic.

I see both RFM and Reel as still entangled in and processing their departure from Mormonism. If, let's say, Richard Dawkins were to engage in a crusade against Mormonism, I would have a problem with that.

But, I have to thank you for helping me process all of this. I have come to the realization that the Tanners, and you, practice anti-Mormonism as part of your Christian faith. And, honestly, Christianity has been engaged in boundary maintenance ever since Paul attacked Peter and Apollos, and Irenaeus wrote Against the Heresies. Maybe the problem is, in fact, me. I have been underestimating a truth and not connecting very obvious dots, namely, that attacks on fellow Christians is an integral part of Christianity, no matter how much Jesus did not want that to happen. But, then, Paul has always been more important than Jesus in the Christian faith.

[I Have Questions]

If, let's say, Richard Dawkins were to engage in a crusade against Mormonism, I would have a problem with that.

Why? Why should Mormonism (or any religious faith) be exempt from a campaign aimed at disproving some of the falsehoods perpetrated by institutional Mormonism as far as you’re concerned?

Without campaigns against Mormonism, plural marriage would not have ended, blacks would not hold the Priesthood, women wouldn’t be invited to sit on the stand, Proposition 8 might have been successful and the Church’s covert machinations in their crusade against same sex marriage wouldn’t have come to light. For example.

[Kishkumen]

Why? Why should Mormonism (or any religious faith) be exempt from a campaign aimed at disproving some of the falsehoods perpetrated by institutional Mormonism as far as you’re concerned?

First of all, I don't think he would. Instead, he spends his time arguing against theistic belief in general, which I think is a lot smarter. I don't approve of calling out specific groups, especially minority groups, to prejudice others against them. I don't believe in punching down. Mormonism is one of the least liked and least trusted of all religious groups, so they don't seem to need much assistance in stoking suspicion, distrust, and even hatred against them.