What is an anti-Mormon?

[_Lemmie]

You're welcome, Huck... I think that most of those that frequent this board are pretty jaded about the term "anti-Mormon" so the responses are really not that surprising. There seems to be (in America) an overall effort to get away from such broad labeling, and the use of such labels as epithets. In many ways this has been nothing but amusing, but there are some real scars that many here have, that such an exercise cannot help but to bring into remembrance and touch off emotional responses. You would think that people would know better, but some seem to be callous of others feelings about such things.

Grindael. You are right to remind me how for people who have left the church the phrase antimormon carries an implied personal spiritual threat to the formerbeliever. Perhaps Nadnai can use the reminder of how much the phrase gets an automatic bad reaction from people who have struggled with faith in the LDS church and ended that faith for themselves.

Good points, both of you, about the emotional responses and the implied personal threat. When I left, I left the beliefs of the church, but my Father told all my relatives that because I was no longer Mormon, I would become some type of "anti-mormon" who would want no contact whatsoever from anyone who was a Mormon, including all of them.

That was not true at all, but because he assumed I would automatically turn "anti-mormon," he felt justified in telling my entire extended family to shun me. It was heart-breaking, and it took years to work that all out.

[_DrW]

Good points, both of you, about the emotional responses and the implied personal threat. When I left, I left the beliefs of the church, but my Father told all my relatives that because I was no longer Mormon, I would become some type of "anti-mormon" who would want no contact whatsoever from anyone who was a Mormon, including all of them.

That was not true at all, but because he assumed I would automatically turn "anti-mormon," he felt justified in telling my entire extended family to shun me. It was heart-breaking, and it took years to work that all out.

Sounds as though you were eventually able to work things out with your extended family and I certainly hope that included your Father.

If your birth family is anything like mine, I imagine that in the meantime (from then until now) other members of your extended family have left the Church as well. If so, did they receive the same treatment?

Hard to imagine a believing Christian father who would try to poison the familial well by advocating the shunning of a next generation family member, especially their own offspring.

I know it happens. I've see it happen, both with Mormons and with Muslims. And it's very upsetting. Such behavior can ruin the lives of those on the receiving end. In Islam such ruined lives of female offspring can also be very short indeed.

[_Lemmie]

Good points, both of you, about the emotional responses and the implied personal threat. When I left, I left the beliefs of the church, but my Father told all my relatives that because I was no longer Mormon, I would become some type of "anti-mormon" who would want no contact whatsoever from anyone who was a Mormon, including all of them.

That was not true at all, but because he assumed I would automatically turn "anti-mormon," he felt justified in telling my entire extended family to shun me. It was heart-breaking, and it took years to work that all out.

Sounds as though you were eventually able to work things out with your extended family and I certainly hope that included your Father.

If your birth family is anything like mine, I imagine that in the meantime (from then until now) other members of your extended family have left the Church as well. If so, did they receive the same treatment?

Hard to imagine a believing Christian father who would try to poison the familial well by advocating the shunning of a next generation family member, especially their own offspring.

I know it happens. I've see it happen, both with Mormons and with Muslims. And it's very upsetting. Such behavior can ruin the lives of those on the receiving end. In Islam such ruined lives of female offspring can also be very short indeed.

Thank you for understanding, DrW, I appreciate your support. It really was a dark time for me.

I was pretty much the first to leave on my Dad's side, so I'm sure I caught the brunt of it. It has now been 30 years and just considering my siblings, nieces and nephews, cousins, aunts and uncles from that branch, I would estimate it's about 40-50% out. On my Mom's side, about 80% out, mostly the younger ones.

[_Niadna]

Well at this point isn't this just a minor unimportant difference in semantics?

Semantics, yes...but not unimportant, given some of the things said by the 'opposition.'

Okay, so everyone can accept the fact a jury has ruled in both of those cases. That does not mean the acts committed in both cases were any more or less wrong does it? For example, I find the verdict reached in the Joseph Smith murderers trial much more problematic that the verdict for the Nauvoo Press incident.

I agree.

The fact that both juries nullified what were clearly illegal acts, in no way affects the true nature of both those acts. So to argue that court system found them innocent really does not matter when one considers the morality of such acts.

Ah, but we weren't considering the morality of them. We were considering the legality of them. At least I was, in response to all the accusations of "it was ILLEGAL! and "He was a TRAITOR and deserved to be hung/shot/whatever!"

Semantics are important, actually.

But you are correct about the morality of both acts, especially viewed from today's POV.

On the other hand, I can also see why someone who had been through the RECEIVING end of having a printing press destroyed, with considerably more damage to buildings and to persons, with the result being....not even a slap on the wrist...might not consider destroying the press of the opposition as something horrific. As I have mentioned, it wasn't exactly 'not done.'

Or doesn't it bother anybody in here that Joseph Smith is charged with treason, then murdered, for doing something that when his ENEMIES did it, with considerably more damage done, those enemies were actually rewarded for doing so?

...or that when those enemies committed assault and arson, the Mormons were told that it was strictly a civil...as in property damage...matter, but when the Mormons did the same thing (with considerably LESS damage) capital charges were leveled against them?

I mean...hello?

[_Fence Sitter]

20-30 years ago, "Anti-Mormon" was someone who claimed the Joseph Smith was a money digger, married teen aged girls and women who were already married, plagiarized the temple ceremony from the Masons had an affair with Fanny Alger, was part of a massive fraudulent banking scheme in Kirtland, taught there were multiple versions of the first vision, believed the American Indians came through the Bering Straits, thought the Breathing Permit of Hor was an ordinary Egyptian document and so on.

Today anti Mormons are those who claim gays have equal rights to marriage, women should be ordained to the priesthood, the church should be financially transparent and act like a church not a corporation, believe that temple marriage ceremonies should be open to the public, bishops shouldn't be interviewing youth by themselves or asking them about their sex lives, think God does not care about our masturbation habits, believes the Book of Mormon to be fictional, think charity and love are more important than blind obedience to fallible men masquerading as God's spokespeople and so on.

Thirty years from now gay members and their spouses will be labeled anti Mormon for petitioning the prophetess to allow the arm band garment to be rainbow colored.

[_Niadna]

Grindael. You are right to remind me how for people who have left the church the phrase antimormon carries an implied personal spiritual threat to the formerbeliever. Perhaps Nadnai can use the reminder of how much the phrase gets an automatic bad reaction from people who have struggled with faith in the LDS church and ended that faith for themselves.

My classifications of 'critic,' "anti' and 'extreme anti' have nothing whatsoever with whether anybody is an ex-Mormon, a Mormon with questions, or a non-Mormon of any sort.

I believe I made that very clear.

I was also attempting, not to paint with a 'broad brush,' but to narrow that definition down and make it about ACTIONS, not feelings or intentions or sincerity of belief.

Y'all seem to be acting like I am calling everybody who isn't defending everything Mormons have done or believe 'anti-Mormon." I'm not....and the whole idea was to explain WHY I don't.

To ME, a critic is anybody who has questions and will deal, with courtesy and a complete lack of ad hominems, with those who disagree with them. Being a critic is a good thing. There is nothing wrong with being a critic. We should all be critics.

The dictionary defines 'critic' as: Definition of critic
1 a : one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique

Critics have questions...and critics are willing to listen to answers and it is POSSIBLE to have a decent conversation with a critic, with some hope of an alteration of viewpoint on one side or the other.

When someone uses ad hominems, strawman fallacies, outright lies or uses nothing but insults in his rhetoric, who repeats accusations and claims after having been corrected...this is an anti. He is not a critic of his target. He is absolutely AGAINST (hence, 'anti') his target; the beliefs, the policies and the people who abide by them. His words prove that.

The difference between an anti and an extreme anti is violence. Someone who threatens, approves of or justifies physical violence or force in order to defeat his target is, in my opinion an extreme anti.

I don't know about you people, but that isn't a 'broad brush.


That's narrowing it down considerably.

[_Niadna]

20-30 years ago, "Anti-Mormon" was someone who claimed the Joseph Smith was a money digger, married teen aged girls and women who were already married, plagiarized the temple ceremony from the Masons had an affair with Fanny Alger, was part of a massive fraudulent banking scheme in Kirtland, taught there were multiple versions of the first vision, believed the American Indians came through the Bering Straits, thought the Breathing Permit of Hor was an ordinary Egyptian document and so on.

Today anti Mormons are those who claim gays have equal rights to marriage, women should be ordained to the priesthood, the church should be financially transparent and act like a church not a corporation, believe that temple marriage ceremonies should be open to the public, bishops shouldn't be interviewing youth by themselves or asking them about their sex lives, think God does not care about our masturbation habits, believes the Book of Mormon to be fictional, think charity and love are more important than blind obedience to fallible men masquerading as God's spokespeople and so on.

Thirty years from now gay members and their spouses will be labeled anti Mormon for petitioning the prophetess to allow the arm band garment to be rainbow colored.

Bull. Being an anti isn't about what you don't like.

It's about how you tell us you don't like it.

[Guest]

Or doesn't it bother anybody in here that Joseph Smith is charged with treason, then murdered, for doing something that when his ENEMIES did it, with considerably more damage done, those enemies were actually rewarded for doing so?

This paragraph is problematic. And I hate when people break things into parts but it does not make sense to me so I'll respond to as if it is two issues.

1. Does it bother me Joseph Smith was charged with treason? Not really, remember he had just set up the council of the 50 and had himself installed as a prophet priest and king. Was it treason? I don't know but it did merit the charge of treason in my opinion. It did not, in anyway justify his murder. Joseph Smith should have had to face a jury for that. By the way if that had happened and he had been found guilty by say a jury composed of the Carthage Greys (the same guys who murdered him), would you still be arguing that legal technicalities are important?

2. I think the second sentence here is referring to something besides Joseph Smith being charged for treason as none of his enemies, as far as I know, were so charged or even accused. Here I think you are referring to what you said below about enemies assaulting and burning Mormons. If that is true, we seem to be jumping around a lot in time frames. Where and when specifically are talking about? Because the Jackson press was several years before the Nauvoo press and in both Missouri and Illinois we have both sides burning and stealing from each other, though I believe the Mormons probably got the worst of it. Additionally if you are willing to go back to the time of the Jackson press destruction for comparisons are you then willing to go forward in time to MMM for a comparison of horrific acts where justice was also not served? I mean where do you draw the line?

...or that when those enemies committed assault and arson, the Mormons were told that it was strictly a civil...as in property damage...matter, but when the Mormons did the same thing (with considerably LESS damage) capital charges were leveled against them?
I mean...hello?

The problem with bringing in all these different issues and trying to compare them to each other is pretty obvious. Nothing is actually decided. Each side just seems to say "oh yeah! What about this?" I think the destruction of both presses are very interesting topics that deserve discussions that focus primarily on the individual event. Continually trying to broaden out the subject matter tends to dilute the conversation and destroy any hope for either side to gain more insight.

[Guest]

Bull. Being an anti isn't about what you don't like.

It's about how you tell us you don't like it.

You will forgive me if I decline to acknowledge your claim to define what being an Anti is or is not. That is questing begging the topic at hand is it not?

[_Maksutov]

http://followtheprophets.com/violence-m ... -massacre/

While the carefully scripted LDS narrative glorifies the tribulations of humble settlers and displaced immigrants, it appears that Mormons themselves were often aggressors in both action and theology. Members regularly violated territorial boundaries and peace agreements, championed Zionist ideals in fiery speech, directly threatened non-Mormons and boasted of their regional political power. LDS history exhibits a constant theme of militancy and righteous persecution, even when facts fail to support the official narrative, which fostered frontier violence and doctrines sustaining vengeance, even blood atonement. The strong anti-government philosophies of Joseph and Brigham further fostered a routinely violent Mormon culture.

The Mountain Meadows massacre, resulting in the wholesale slaughter of 120 men, women and children by Mormons, was one of the largest losses of life in the westward settlements. Brigham Young appears not to have directly ordered the executions – the Cedar City Stake President did – but played a pivotal role in inciting the massacre with his inflammatory doctrines, and explicitly participated in the elaborate cover up. The frontier environment of paranoia and government mistrust was exacerbated by the prophets’ plans for succeeding from U.S., which was a primary driver in the selection of the distant and largely inaccessible Salt Lake Valley.

Volataire’s words so perfectly fit early Mormon culture in general; “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can also make you commit atrocities.”