CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

[Physics Guy]

Critiques of Mormonism that I know are about the main LDS denomination of which Russell M. Nelson is the current President. I don't see a lot of people attacking the Community of Christ, for example. As I understand it, the CoC is a less authoritarian and demanding Mormon denomination which doesn't teach that the Book of Mormon is necessarily an authentic ancient record. It may also just be too small to be worth attacking.

If I try to survey religious movements in general, I see a lot of diversity. "Religion" is not all the same kind of porridge. You can group movements into categories, range them along axes, and keep doing that in lots of ways. You'll still always be oversimplifying; even if you get down to such a fine-grained classification that every individual human being is a denomination of one, the theory will be oversimplified, because my personal religion isn't quite the same every day, let alone every decade.

Nevertheless some categorisations can be useful. We could draw some Venn diagrams. The CoJCoLDS and the CoC would both be inside the "Mormon" circle, but I guess they'd be separated by circles for "authority" and "literalism".

Then there are movements like fundamentalist Protestantism, which is apt to be as literalist and intolerant as LDS Mormonism but typically has no hierarchy above local pastors. So attacking Protestant fundamentalism is kind of like attacking a slime mould. It has no central organs at which one can aim. Even criticising the common doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible is a hard blow to land, because although every pastor upholds infallibility, they can all disagree about how to interpret the infallible Word, and so they can all shrug off attacks by saying that it is only those other, mistaken ways of interpreting God's Word that have been invalidated, not their own correct way.

If LDS Mormonism is criticised more than other religious movements, then I'm not sure that this is just an unfair accident. I suspect that the intersection of Venn circles in which the LDS church lies is a kind of perfect storm of attackability.

Is that situation itself just a fluke? Is the concentration of critiquable features in Mormonism a historical accident due to particular conditions and trends in 19th century America? Or is the combination of untenable claims, organisational authority, and high demand upon members no coincidence because it is the nearly inevitable legacy of original fraud?

Nothing in this post is addressing the question of whether or not religious beliefs should ever be criticised. Perhaps the observation that Mormonism sits in a nexus of vulnerability to criticism is like saying that this kid gets bullied because they tick all three boxes of being short, wearing glasses, and having freckles. That might be true but it doesn't make bullying anyone okay.

I don't think the LDS church is as vulnerable as a bullied child, though, and so the urgency of stopping the attacks probably isn't great enough to push everything else off the agenda. I think it makes sense to compare denominational features as factors in drawing critique. And I think it's legitimate to ask whether there's any coherent reason behind a particular feature set.

[Dr. Shades]

. . . I don’t put much stock in religious beliefs, as I have said many times here. As soon as I hear “we believe X,” my eyes glaze over.

Then why do you want those beliefs to thrive?

[Kishkumen]

So far Kish you apparently have limited information about the current view of Mormonism. You are living in Chick track , god makers world view. We all know of all this. Pick up the speed. Richard Packham penetrated Mormonism years ago using much more varied descriptive terms. And yes you are coffee with Kish but man whatever audience you are targeting I am at a loss. Rfm would kick you to the curb. Typing as I listen. Big tent religion will never work. Get rid of your dumb Satanic crap.

Bizarre. Well, it is not primarily aimed at a specialist Mormon Studies audience. I am talking chiefly about anti-Mormon ministries. Evidently you wanted me to talk about Ex-Mo anti-Mormonism. Different things. Oh well.

[Kishkumen]

Then why do you want those beliefs to thrive?

I take it for granted that the importance of believing certain propositions is so baked into the culture that it would be futile to fight it.

[Moksha]

I take it for granted that the importance of believing certain propositions is so baked into the culture that it would be futile to fight it.

I appreciate Kish's efforts.

Anti-Mormons are unable to appreciate the translating ability of seer stones or the transformative property of polygamy that gains the practitioner the closest proximity to God. They scoff at the LDS apologists' best efforts to prove Mormonism is true. They doubt the ability of tapirs to pull steel chariots into battle.

What else are these so-called "anti-Mormons" hiding?

[Kishkumen]

I appreciate Kish's efforts.

Anti-Mormons are unable to appreciate the translating ability of seer stones or the transformative property of polygamy that gains the practitioner the closest proximity to God. They scoff at the LDS apologists' best efforts to prove Mormonism is true. They doubt the ability of tapirs to pull steel chariots into battle.

What else are these so-called "anti-Mormons" hiding?

Thanks for the laughs, Moksha. You help me stay sane.

[Kishkumen]

Critiques of Mormonism that I know are about the main LDS denomination of which Russell M. Nelson is the current President. I don't see a lot of people attacking the Community of Christ, for example. As I understand it, the CoC is a less authoritarian and demanding Mormon denomination which doesn't teach that the Book of Mormon is necessarily an authentic ancient record. It may also just be too small to be worth attacking.

If I try to survey religious movements in general, I see a lot of diversity. "Religion" is not all the same kind of porridge. You can group movements into categories, range them along axes, and keep doing that in lots of ways. You'll still always be oversimplifying; even if you get down to such a fine-grained classification that every individual human being is a denomination of one, the theory will be oversimplified, because my personal religion isn't quite the same every day, let alone every decade.

Nevertheless some categorisations can be useful. We could draw some Venn diagrams. The CoJCoLDS and the CoC would both be inside the "Mormon" circle, but I guess they'd be separated by circles for "authority" and "literalism".

Then there are movements like fundamentalist Protestantism, which is apt to be as literalist and intolerant as LDS Mormonism but typically has no hierarchy above local pastors. So attacking Protestant fundamentalism is kind of like attacking a slime mould. It has no central organs at which one can aim. Even criticising the common doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible is a hard blow to land, because although every pastor upholds infallibility, they can all disagree about how to interpret the infallible Word, and so they can all shrug off attacks by saying that it is only those other, mistaken ways of interpreting God's Word that have been invalidated, not their own correct way.

If LDS Mormonism is criticised more than other religious movements, then I'm not sure that this is just an unfair accident. I suspect that the intersection of Venn circles in which the LDS church lies is a kind of perfect storm of attackability.

Is that situation itself just a fluke? Is the concentration of critiquable features in Mormonism a historical accident due to particular conditions and trends in 19th century America? Or is the combination of untenable claims, organisational authority, and high demand upon members no coincidence because it is the nearly inevitable legacy of original fraud?

Nothing in this post is addressing the question of whether or not religious beliefs should ever be criticised. Perhaps the observation that Mormonism sits in a nexus of vulnerability to criticism is like saying that this kid gets bullied because they tick all three boxes of being short, wearing glasses, and having freckles. That might be true but it doesn't make bullying anyone okay.

I don't think the LDS church is as vulnerable as a bullied child, though, and so the urgency of stopping the attacks probably isn't great enough to push everything else off the agenda. I think it makes sense to compare denominational features as factors in drawing critique. And I think it's legitimate to ask whether there's any coherent reason behind a particular feature set.

Great post there, PG. There is a lot to unpack in it. I, too, don't think the LDS Church is so vulnerable. They are, after all, a financial powerhouse. But I do think individual members are vulnerable, and they pay a price for the antagonism and hostility aimed at the LDS Church. I think it is fine to criticize beliefs, and there are probably temperate and constructive ways of doing that. I don't see enough temperate and constructive criticisms of LDS beliefs, especially in anti-Mormonism.

[Failed Prophecy]

I disagree. You want to champion your opinions, and pretend you somehow know more about this crap that others, and the back down and deflect when asked to support your assertions. It is really that simple. You even admitted that your last podcast was a rant...as I predict this one will be. You owe me some answers, for one, because you promised me you would answer some of my questions, which you have so far failed to do. And beyond that, while you don't owe answers to me, it would help you with credibility if you did.

Who has time to answer questions when I have to field all of this baffling and bizarre hostility? I never promised to answer all of your questions. If we can ever bring this around to a civil discussion, I will answer some of your questions, but, the thing is, I don’t put much stock in religious beliefs, as I have said many times here. As soon as I hear “we believe X,” my eyes glaze over.

You have time to make lengthy you tube videos but don't have time to type out a one sentence response to a question?

[Dr Exiled]

Critiques of Mormonism that I know are about the main LDS denomination of which Russell M. Nelson is the current President. I don't see a lot of people attacking the Community of Christ, for example. As I understand it, the CoC is a less authoritarian and demanding Mormon denomination which doesn't teach that the Book of Mormon is necessarily an authentic ancient record. It may also just be too small to be worth attacking.

If I try to survey religious movements in general, I see a lot of diversity. "Religion" is not all the same kind of porridge. You can group movements into categories, range them along axes, and keep doing that in lots of ways. You'll still always be oversimplifying; even if you get down to such a fine-grained classification that every individual human being is a denomination of one, the theory will be oversimplified, because my personal religion isn't quite the same every day, let alone every decade.

Nevertheless some categorisations can be useful. We could draw some Venn diagrams. The CoJCoLDS and the CoC would both be inside the "Mormon" circle, but I guess they'd be separated by circles for "authority" and "literalism".

Then there are movements like fundamentalist Protestantism, which is apt to be as literalist and intolerant as LDS Mormonism but typically has no hierarchy above local pastors. So attacking Protestant fundamentalism is kind of like attacking a slime mould. It has no central organs at which one can aim. Even criticising the common doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible is a hard blow to land, because although every pastor upholds infallibility, they can all disagree about how to interpret the infallible Word, and so they can all shrug off attacks by saying that it is only those other, mistaken ways of interpreting God's Word that have been invalidated, not their own correct way.

If LDS Mormonism is criticised more than other religious movements, then I'm not sure that this is just an unfair accident. I suspect that the intersection of Venn circles in which the LDS church lies is a kind of perfect storm of attackability.

Is that situation itself just a fluke? Is the concentration of critiquable features in Mormonism a historical accident due to particular conditions and trends in 19th century America? Or is the combination of untenable claims, organisational authority, and high demand upon members no coincidence because it is the nearly inevitable legacy of original fraud?

Nothing in this post is addressing the question of whether or not religious beliefs should ever be criticised. Perhaps the observation that Mormonism sits in a nexus of vulnerability to criticism is like saying that this kid gets bullied because they tick all three boxes of being short, wearing glasses, and having freckles. That might be true but it doesn't make bullying anyone okay.

I don't think the LDS church is as vulnerable as a bullied child, though, and so the urgency of stopping the attacks probably isn't great enough to push everything else off the agenda. I think it makes sense to compare denominational features as factors in drawing critique. And I think it's legitimate to ask whether there's any coherent reason behind a particular feature set.

Great post there, PG. There is a lot to unpack in it. I, too, don't think the LDS Church is so vulnerable. They are, after all, a financial powerhouse. But I do think individual members are vulnerable, and they pay a price for the antagonism and hostility aimed at the LDS Church. I think it is fine to criticize beliefs, and there are probably temperate and constructive ways of doing that. I don't see enough temperate and constructive criticisms of LDS beliefs, especially in anti-Mormonism.

How do you think missionary work factors into it? I've had conversations with non-Mormons that point to that as the irritation they feel about Mormonism. Too many sales attempts tend to put people off and missionary work has been there from the beginning. Wasn't Pratt murdered in Arkansas because he was trying to convert a plural wife and the husband didn't like it? Perhaps this is why CoC isn't "persecuted" as much? They keep to themselves it seems. Perhaps don't push it on people and the supposed "persecution" will subside? I believe this is in part and perhaps a big part as to why Dr. Wesley Walters was so motivated to "attack" Mormon beliefs - he didn't like "false" doctrine being preached by so many missionaries, expecially to his flock.

[Markk]

PG wrote...Critiques of Mormonism that I know are about the main LDS denomination of which Russell M. Nelson is the current President. I don't see a lot of people attacking the Community of Christ, for example. As I understand it, the CoC is a less authoritarian and demanding Mormon denomination which doesn't teach that the Book of Mormon is necessarily an authentic ancient record. It may also just be too small to be worth attacking.

I see the reason that the main denomination is heavily criticized is that the criticism's are coming from within. Where as branches like the CoC are more content.

35 years ago when I was coming out of the church, and adopting my Evangelical faith....the internet was just starting to take off, and there was a lot of Evangelical vs. Mormonism debate. But, and my point here, within in the evangelical/protestant churches there was little concern of caring within the membership. Most members just don't care they have their own problems and life concerns and Mormonism is just not on their radar.

I attended a large Calvary Chapel and was the resident "go to' for Mormon questions, and business was almost non-existent, and when I did talk to folks, they really did not care to know more, unless a family member was investigating the church. Generally they just believed Mormon's owned stock in Coke and had many wives, and that was all they needed to know. I gave a class on it a few times, and of 500 or more members maybe a dozen would show up. It is not like the Cult section of Christian books stores is a best selling section, that is just not the case, especially these days.

What we see in Mormonism today regarding the Criticism's of the church, for the very most part is a implosion from within. Dehlin is a force, and huge, and has surpassed the anti argumentations to forcing policy changes of the church. Reel, RFM, Nemo, and a host of others are producing the majority of the criticisms. Dehlin is currently attacking the church head on in regards to the treatment of the CES author, with a series of episodes showing that he was excommunicated for asking questions and writing on things that are very true....I suggest watching the most recent one about Brian Hales and polygamy....there is a round table that includes Vogel and Sandra Tanner, and a recently returned missionary that is hearing about Joseph Smiths marriages and libido for the first time, real time. A must watch, it really brought back some forgotten emotions of how I felt when I first read about it.

Taking a moment to think back, there are only a few names that come to mind that were not LDS, that have made a name in criticizing the church.....Walter Martin, White, McKeever? And even they relied on Brooks, Brodie and Tanner material. Maybe Wesley Walters is the exception, he did his own deep research.

But again I see the the difference between the COC and the CoJCoLdS is the former is content within these days (and smaller), while the latter is really imploding within. Comparing the current LDS leaders to a soccer referee, they are losing control of the game. If you have ever officiated a sporting event and lost the game, LoL you know exactly what I mean, it is a lonely place, especially when parents start yelling at you. That kind of what I see happing to the brethren, they have lost the game, at least in my opinion.

Sorry for the long post