DiscussMormonism.com

While I was sitting on the couch today listening to our home teachers retell Pres. Monson's story about the wedge that was left in a cleft of an oak tree, and caused the destruction of the tree a few years later, I glanced down and saw the cover of the July, 2007 issue of "The New Era".

On the cover was "Dealing with Anti-Mormon Literature, p. 14", so tonight I picked it up to have a look.

I have to laugh at TBMs on MAD, this board, etc. who say that the church doesn't try to steer people away from anti-mormon literature. They absolutely do, and this article is a good example of it.

Here are some bullet points from the first page of the two-page article.

* Say you would rather read something you trust, like the scriptures.

* Spending a lot of time and energy reading anti-Mormon literature would be a waste.

* If you run across it, discuss it with someone who is knowledgeable about the gospel.

* Never take anti-Mormon literature at face value.

* Honest inquiry is good, but everything needs a proper perspective and context.

Just reading these bullet points, I have visions of Boyd K. Packer waving his fingers in front of our face in the Jedi mind trick "these aren't the truths you're looking for", and we all, zombie-like, intone "these aren't the truths we're looking for", and then he says "you want to read the scriptures and pay your tithing", and we all intone "I want to read the scriptures and pay my tithing" and we wander off, later wondering what just happened, but with this inexplicable hankering to pull out the triple combination and write GBH a check.

Here's another gem:

Think of how you feel when you read the Book of Mormon, or bear your testimony. How do these feelings compare with the feelings that come from reading anti-Mormon literature? Which is guiding you to the truth? [emphasis added]

Despite whatever denials you may ever have read over on MAD or from the TBMs here that the LDS testiphony relies on feelings, here's the Chapel Mormon magazine for LDS laying it all for the chapel Mormon youth, and it's all about the feelings. Here's what they're saying, whether they would say it this way or not. "We deliberately put ourselves into a state where we feel good when we read the scriptures or bear our testimony, and reading anti-mormon literature creates disturbances in our minds, because it challenges the foundations of the church we've built our lives on. Since LDS testimonies rely on feelings, and anti-Mormon literature induces disturbing feelings, you should interpret those disturbing feelings as God's way of telling you that the anti-Mormon literature is false."

They have "Readers" section at the end of the article with answers provided by some teenaged and young 20s readers who replied to some question about what to do if a friend shows you some anti-Mormon literature.

Here's a good one:

Just tell your friend the truth, that you find that literature disturbing. If he or she is a true friend, he or she will have no problem with it. Stick with your feeling of not wanting to read it. If you do read it, it could open up a window of doubt. There are plenty of good books (like True to the Faith) that have been written through inspiration. Pick up one of those so that you may know how to respond to questions.[emphasis added]

And another:

Anti-Mormon literature will be filled with scriptures or quotes that are taken out of context and twisted to serve the author's purpose of filling people's minds with doubt about the Church. The fact that you get an uneasy feeling when you read anti-mormon literature should be proof enough. The best thing you can do to be prepared for questions is to be faithful and read the Book of Mormon daily. Also, most people who will ask you questions that come from the anti-Mormon literature are not interested in finding the gospel. They want you to argue with them so they can twist your words (see Alma 11). [emphasis added]

Isn't it so painfully obvious now that they work hard to instill a fear of anti-Mormon literature into people, and then point out that if they feel uneasy while reading it, that's proof that it's false? They've created their own anti-dote here. They've undermined a person's ability to read information and process it with their normal rational faculties. Over time this because a very real blind spot with them. This is why you can have brilliant scientists, lawyers, doctors, or whatever else who are LDS, who are smart and rational about every aspect of their life but the LDS church. They've slowly, over the years, turned off their brain's normal critical thinking thought processes whenever the topic revolves around the LDS church, thought processes which they may apply brilliantly in other areas of their lives, but cannot see to do it where the church is concerned.

One last one for the road:

One day I was talking to a friend, who is not a member of our church, and we almost got to the point where we started putting each other's churches down, but I didn't want it to get to that point, so I just bore my testimony and stopped. A few weeks later I got some pamphlets and magazines in the mail from her. I could have kept them so that I would know what some writers think about our church, but I didn't. This experience made me want to be more prepared when things like this happen. [emphasis added]

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.

Best.

CKS

This is one of those internet Mormon lines that we all know is BS, including the people who push it. Who knows why they play this game. Sometimes I think it's to present a front for never mo's who don't know better and can be taken in by it.

I think what is most telling is the explicit tactic to the effect that if something one reads causes cognitive dissonance, then that material is, de facto, incorrect (because the Spirit-cum-one's-feelings are "testifying" against it).

This strikes me as incredibly self-serving and destructive of critical thinking skills. The idea, as you pointed out, is that bad feelings (uncomfortable feelings) demonstrate the falsehood of "anti" material, while good feelings demonstrate the truthfulness of LDS belief. If the faithful LDS internalizes this dichotomy, then the odds that he will ever come to question his beliefs are slim indeed.

When the Brethren speak like this, the thinking doesn't even get started, let alone done.

CKS

cksalmon wrote:When the Brethren speak like this, the thinking doesn't even get started, let alone done.

CKS

I think that's the point.

Great Post!

Can you post this at MAD? (I'll do it if you're banned or something)
Bold every instance of the word "feel" or "feelings".

Also, the notion that the uneasy feeling is "proof enough" is just laugh-outloud insane.
A feeling is a proof???? LOL . Tal will love this one.

Couldn't the uneasy feeling be the creeping realization that one might have been duped? Ya, I think so.

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.

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.

Dr. Peterson,

I don't think the problem is with the people on this board confusing what the overlap is. The problem is with the people that don't get on discussion boards and think about such issues. They're told to avoid anti-Mormon literature and how do they know what that is? It seems they would just avoid everything.

barrelomonkeys wrote:Dr. Peterson,

I don't think the problem is with the people on this board confusing what the overlap is. The problem is with the people that don't get on discussion boards and think about such issues. They're told to avoid anti-Mormon literature and how do they know what that is? It seems they would just avoid everything.

How to know which is which? That's easy. If it's sold in a Deseret bookstore, it's okay. If not, beware.

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.

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.

Come on. I think they are far more worried about the writings of G. Palmer, Charles Larson, Fawn Brodie, Southerton, etc. or even Todd Compton and M. Quinn.

They did use the word "literature" after all.
Edit to add: They would also be worried about anything that reveals issues about the Book of Abraham pseudo-translation, polyandry, polygamy, Book of Mormon anachronisms, challenges to the Book of Mormon based on DNA, archeology, and paleontology.

In anycase, the appeal to feelings is misguided. Things that challenge our world view often make us feel uneasy. The idea that this is proof of something is absurd. It isn't even evidence for anything except something about frailties of the human mind.

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

What one would rather read isn't the point is it? Perhaps people would rather read King Benjamin than some of your posts here (Not me though--obviously).