Dealing with Anti-Mormon Literature, p. 14

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

barrelomonkeys wrote:
Tarski wrote:For example, perhaps consciousness is an eternal connected reality in which we participate in a way that if understood would make death seem more like an ascent to a higher Self than descent into "oblivion" (whatever that is).

I should mention that my view of time (inspired by spacetime physics) make death a bit less monstrous.


Could you elaborate on that? Or start a new thread?


Actually, I wouldn't mind hearing more about this, either.

Care to enlighten us with a new thread, Tarski?
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Post by _Sethbag »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
cksalmon wrote:That's a good find, Seth. It definitely confirms what I've read many critics affirm and many TBM's deny: that the Church actively discourages interaction with controversial material.

Don't confuse "controversial material" with "anti-Mormon literature."
The two sets certainly overlap, but they're not identical.

It's not our fault that the Church has settled onto this "large tent" jargon word "anti-Mormon" and lumped By His Hand Upon Papyrus and In Sacred Loneliness in with the Ed Decker stuff, or the Steve Benson rants on RfM, or the stuff some EVs hand out about Mormons worshiping the "wrong Jesus". They have, in my opinion, not made any distinction like this on purpose, so that the historically informative yet testimony-challenging stuff gets lumped in with the rants and the fiction. When the church stops lumping anything together into one big word that has the effect of challenging one's testimony, I think your point will be more apropos.
Moreover, I don't think that the comparison of feelings when reading the scriptures with those of reading, say, Steve Benson, is fundamentally misplaced. A normal person who asks herself whether she would rather read King Benjamin's address, on the one hand, or, on the other, an equivalent amount of religion-related prose from Some Schmo or Mercury, or whether she would rather live in a society whose tone is set to some degree by the Sermon on the Mount rather than in one for which the dominant discourse is framed by Ed Decker or John Ankerberg, will, I think, have learned something quite important.

How about the comparison between the feelings a young kid had at the testimony meeting during EFY or a temple trip, and the feelings of dissonance and "disturbance of the Force" that the same kid will feel if they read "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus"?

I see where you're going, and you're purposefully addressing the very worst of anti-Mormon material on purpose. The problem is the church's technique of conflating feelings with some kind of actual discernment of real truth doesn't make exceptions for the "true" anti-Mormon stuff, and so they are conditioning people to recognize falsehood in material they find strictly based on the feelings alone. It cannot be doubted that someone reading up on Joseph Smith's massive-scale polygamy and polyandry is almost certainly going to feel very disturbed. If they're conditioned to accept this disturbed feeling as an indication of falsehood, they've just been trained by the church to ignore the truth when they should be recognizing it.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Sethbag wrote:It's not our fault that the Church has settled onto this "large tent" jargon word "anti-Mormon" and lumped By His Hand Upon Papyrus and In Sacred Loneliness in with the Ed Decker stuff, or the Steve Benson rants on RfM, or the stuff some EVs hand out about Mormons worshiping the "wrong Jesus".

I'm unaware of "the Church" having done this.
_cksalmon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:20 pm

That's what I meant to say...

Post by _cksalmon »

Sethbag wrote:The problem is the church's technique of conflating feelings with some kind of actual discernment of real truth doesn't make exceptions for the "true" anti-Mormon stuff, and so they are conditioning people to recognize falsehood in material they find strictly based on the feelings alone.


That's the point I was trying unsuccessfully to make. Thanks, Seth.
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Post by _Sethbag »

Daniel Peterson wrote:Life is full of sorrow . . . and then you die.

You offer an interesting perspective. I can't think of anything urgent to say about it, though.

Life is full of whatever you make of it, actually. I tend to be a glass half full type of person, believe it or not, and I constantly seek and try to find the positive, uplifting ideas relating to our existence here, and don't approach it all as meaningless nothingless and pain where I'd be better of just killing myself.

One thing that troubles me is if there isn't this "cosmic justice" that religious people believe in, where people who are crapped on by accident of birth here in this life, like African children who die of disease and starvation, or get their arms hacked off when they're 10, or whatever, will have it a lot better in the next life. If there is no next life, then it really sucked to be these people*. I guess my only response to that is that if this is the way it is, then our human compassion towards each other ought to really kick in and prompt us to do all we can to try to improve the lot of people to the extent we can.

Dan, I think the problem with your responses here is that you're trying to play the shell-game we've come to know and love over on MAD, where the apologists deny the nose that's plainly on their face. This article was written by LDS-church paid staffers, approved by some committee to make sure it promotes what The Brethren want promoted, and printed in an LDS magazine aimed at LDS youth. It clearly does encourage LDS youth to avoid anti-Mormon literature, while making no distinction whatsoever between anti-Mormon "kook" stuff and scholarly works which inevitably challenge one's testimony. You can deny all you want that your average LDS Peter and Molly will conflate Charles Larson with Ed Decker, but every one of us on this board and I suspect on MAD has seen it in action, all over the place. I've had a lot of experience with people doing this personally. A sister-in-law, upon seeing Larson's book in her mother's house, being thumbed through by one of her brothers, remarked that she has no idea why anyone would even want such trash in their house at all. Just this last weekend I met up with an old Army buddy (from my National Guard years) with whom I was best friends for many years until I moved away from his area nine years ago. He's LDS, and I broke it to him on the way back from picking him up that I'd stopped believing in the church, just because he'd probably notice the lack of a garment line under my clothes anymore and stuff like that. During part of our ensuing discussion, I offered to refer him to books that I'd read, and his response was "no thanks", which is exactly the kind of response that this article I posted about in this thread, and lots of other subtle and not so subtle signals from church leaders, are trying to condition people to give.

*says this white American male - I guess it's pretentious to judge the quality of their lives from our own perspective, still, with all due respect, I cannot imagine how great their life is to be born to parents who die a year later from AIDS, having AIDS oneself from birth, and die a nasty death a few years later of disease and starvation in an orphanage.
Last edited by Anonymous on Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Sethbag wrote:Dan, I think the problem with your responses here is that you're trying to play the shell-game we've come to know and love over on MAD, where the apologists deny the nose that's plainly on their face.

I appreciate the casual and de rigeur insinuation of disingenuousness. I really do.

Sethbag wrote:You can deny all you want that your average LDS Peter and Molly will conflate Charles Larson with Ed Decker

I haven't denied it. I've said that some will and some won't. That's up to them. And the line isn't always obvious.
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Post by _Sethbag »

Ok, fair enough. Let's get back to the article. Do you agree, or disagree, that this article in the New Era is likely intended to have the effect of steering LDS young people away from any material that challenges their testimonies? Because I think it clearly is, and that it's fairly plain, and yet you seem, in this thread, to be saying it's not, and that the Church really doesn't try to steer people clear of challenging material like this, and that in your experience, LDS don't have problems with stuff by people like Larson, Compton, and Quinn. I cannot argue with your personal experience, but I too have had a lifetime so far of personal experience, and in my experience, normal LDS people really are afraid of this stuff, and for exactly the kinds of reasons discussed and promoted in this article.
Last edited by Anonymous on Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_Tarski
_Emeritus
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:57 pm

Post by _Tarski »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Sethbag wrote:Dan, I think the problem with your responses here is that you're trying to play the shell-game we've come to know and love over on MAD, where the apologists deny the nose that's plainly on their face.

I appreciate the casual and de rigeur insinuation of disingenuousness. I really do.

Sethbag wrote:You can deny all you want that your average LDS Peter and Molly will conflate Charles Larson with Ed Decker

I haven't denied it. I've said that some will and some won't. That's up to them. And the line isn't always obvious.

The average member should not condescendingly be protected from Ed Decker writings either. One has to merely ask around to discern wish parts are provable nonsense.
_Lucretia MacEvil
_Emeritus
Posts: 1558
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:01 am

Post by _Lucretia MacEvil »

[quote="Daniel Peterson As I've said before, if liberation from my religious views will make me like some of those I've observed on the so-called "Recovery" board, I'd prefer to spend the few pointless remaining years before I sink into oblivion among the Saints.[/quote]

If going back to Mormonism would make me like some apologists I've observed on various Mormon related boards, I'd prefer to spend eternity in outer darkness.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Sethbag wrote:Do you agree, or disagree, that this article in the New Era is likely intended to have the effect of steering LDS young people away from any material that challenges their testimonies?

I think it's more likely than not.

I also think that children and teenagers are not adults.

I would have been very unhappy if somebody had been plying one of my young kids with the writings of "Dr." Walter Martin in order to try to take him out of the Church, or even if somebody had been trying to get him to read Todd Compton. If one of my teenage sons had wanted to read such things, I wouldn't have prevented him -- in fact, I have a slew of such stuff around the house -- but I would resent the meddling of anybody driven by an agenda to destroy the faith of one of my young children.

Adults are different. It's a free marketplace of ideas out there.

Tarski wrote:The average member should not condescendingly be protected from Ed Decker writings either. One has to merely ask around to discern wish parts are provable nonsense.

Who's "protecting" anybody from Ed Decker? There are no teams of censors fanning out across the wards of the Church. (I've just learned that I'm an agent of the Strengthening Church Members Committee, so I should know.)
Post Reply