DiscussMormonism.com

I have been dealing with this issue for years.

Some Mormons think that everybody who isn't for Mormonism is against it...the Matthew 12:30 approach.

I'm not going to talk about false dichotomies here....well, not much....

But I can see how they might think so, after dealing with internet forums. ;)

I'll admit that I AM tired of those who call us "Satanists," "Baby killers" "brain-washed," getting all upset because we might refer to them as 'anti-Mormon."

As for me, I divide non-Mormons into categories:

non-Mormons...everybody who isn't a Mormon, except of course the joke is that everybody IS a Mormon of some type: non-Mormon, anti-Mormon, prospective Mormon, ex-Mormon....never mind.

non-Mormons are those who are not members of one of the several Mormon groups. this group comprises most of the population of the world, who have, by and large, absolutely no interest in or knowledge of Mormonism. They don't care, either, most of 'em.

friends of/at least not enemies of Mormonism: folks who know Mormons as neighbors and like 'em OK, but don't really want to get into religious stuff. These are they who are polite when they close the door on missionaries and then go back to eating lunch.

critics: those who are interested in Mormonism and have honest disagreements with doctrine and/or policies, and who like to discuss, even argue, with Mormons about those things in a civil manner. No insults. No personal bashing. They have, sometimes very strong disagreements and can express them strongly, but they don't cross that "you are an idiot" line and don't think that their goal is to destroy Mormonism no matter what.

anti-Mormons: these are the folks who think that the ends justify the means; who, as Ed Decker supposedly remarked, think that 'anything goes when dealing with the devil Mormon church"...or words to that effect. These are they who deliberately misrepresent our beliefs, take them out of context for shock value (Jesus and Satan are BROTHERS! GASP), and outright lie in order to achieve their goal...that of destroying Mormonism. They are verbally abusive, insulting...and utterly predictable if one has spoken to them for any length of time. These are also the folks who get the most upset when someone CALLS them 'anti-Mormons."

......................then there are the extreme anti-Mormons. I had to split the group, because most simple anti-Mormons only throw words.

Extreme anti-Mormons throw rocks. One woman has threatened to have me hauled out of her church in handcuffs if I so much as showed up to her service, loves to tell about how her neighbor set her dogs on the missionaries for daring to tell her the the Bible wasn't inerrant, threatened to set HER dog on me, and told me that if I were stupid enough to walk down a public street that had a store front church meeting going on, then it was entirely my fault if those in the meeting ran out and threw rocks at me. What in the WORLD was I doing 'flaunting' myself (yeah, those missionary badges are really ostentatious, aren't they?) in a place where there might be people who didn't like Mormons?

She is also fond of feeding people she doesn't like to alligators.

SHE is an extreme anti-Mormon. She's also highly amusing in her incredible seriousness, but that's beside the point.

So....on internet forums I seem to run into...mostly...anti Mormons with a few critics (I love the critics) and quite a few extreme anti Mormons.

How close do you think I am in this analysis?

Hey Niadna,

Weekends tend to be really slow here, so this may not get much traction for a day or two.

I would say it is very hard to make nice neat categories into which everyone can be placed.

For me, an anti Mormon is someone who wants to see the Church fail, diminish or just go away. This person could also be a critic.

But here is the thing about calling someone a critic. From what I see, it is usually a label used to describe someone who holds a different view of what Mormonism is than the person using the label. That's it. So you find a lot of people who are called critics who are also Mormons and in many cases, are faithful, full tithe paying, temple recommend holding, and hold and carry out their callings in the church. So for all you know I may be doing all those things and still think the church is wrong about how it hides its finances or its policies on gay and women and so on.

In my view definitions that try and slot people into nice neat categories are only useful for someone trying to defend a particular view or opinion. Being able to label someone is really only useful for those who have no better responses to their own position. It is sort of like when the church tells people to read "faithful history" which is really telling them that if what they read challenges their own testimony then it is their own fault for reading "non faithful" history.

There are two types of people in the world: those who put people into categories and those who ...

Oh, nevermind.

Seriously, what do you get out of creating these categories and then assigning folks to them? Do you choose how to interact with them based on their category or as individuals?

Niadna, most of the people currently posting on this board have been active believing Mormons but have become doubtful or no longer believing, perhaps officially no longer a member. Some here are angry enough to be short , perhaps tired of discussing truth claims they view as false and manipulative.

Myself I left the church 50 years ago and after spending some years as an atheist I refound my faith in Jesus. I belong to a Presbyterian church but vary in my choices of where to attend. I think there are a mix of good and inferior qualities in the LDS church. I could add I know of no church without inferior pieces, I know of no church holding pure truth.

I do think Martin Luther King is the closest America gets to having a true prophet so far.

Res Ipsa wrote:There are two types of people in the world: those who put people into categories and those who ...

Oh, nevermind.

Seriously, what do you get out of creating these categories and then assigning folks to them? Do you choose how to interact with them based on their category or as individuals?

yep.

Or rather...sometimes.

What that really was about was trying to differentiate the honest critic, who sees something s/he honestly has a problem with and respectfully addresses that, from the folks who use insulting language, from the folks who do physically obstructive and perhaps even harmful, things.

Loose categories, sure, but the thing is, I'm tired of the Mormons who think that every critic is as 'anti-Mormon' as the folks who shot Sardius Smith, and I'm just as tired of the folks who think that the Haun's Mill thing was justified because some Mormon gave a speech saying that Mormons would defend themselves if they were attacked.

There's a pretty wide variety of opinions out there, and I just don't think that "Mormon/Anti-Mormon" covers it.

From what I can tell, it's a rhetorical term used to express personal dislike or indignation, so defining it propositionally isn't really a useful exercise.

huckelberry wrote:Niadna, most of the people currently posting on this board have been active believing Mormons but have become doubtful or no longer believing, perhaps officially no longer a member. Some here are angry enough to be short , perhaps tired of discussing truth claims they view as false and manipulative.

Myself I left the church 50 years ago and after spending some years as an atheist I refound my faith in Jesus. I belong to a Presbyterian church but vary in my choices of where to attend. I think there are a mix of good and inferior qualities in the LDS church. I could add I know of no church without inferior pieces, I know of no church holding pure truth.

I do think Martin Luther King is the closest America gets to having a true prophet so far.

So...do you see yourself as a critic, an anti or an 'extreme anti?"

I haven't been here long enough to put anybody in any 'file folder,' loose as the categories might be, so...where would you put yourself? (never mind, dumb question...NOBODY would admit to deliberately misrepresenting anything).

For me, I think the dividing line between 'critic' and 'anti' would be...insults and deliberate misrepresentation, and the line between 'anti' and 'extreme anti' would be...physical action (or approval of physical action) that might cause harm. I don't put the demonstrators outside Temple Square in the 'extreme' group unless they do stuff like step on toes or block passage.

As I wrote, I love critics. They make me think and honestly examine my own beliefs. I don't have to throw up all the defenses against stupidity. Antis, now? Sometimes I have to wonder what the point is for them. Really.

Johannes wrote:From what I can tell, it's a rhetorical term used to express personal dislike or indignation, so defining it propositionally isn't really a useful exercise.

No. NOW you are talking about the definition of 'cult,' which means, as far as I can tell "I think your beliefs are weird and I don't like you."

"anti" (and that's "anti" pretty much anything) CAN be described, I think....and I have found it useful to do so. For one thing, it keeps me from calling sincere critics insulting names. ;)

From a Fundamentalist, Evangelical, Bible Believing, Born Again, Christian perspective --- there is no anti-Mormon among us. There is only a disregard of any heretical, man made religion that places an organization, works, ritualism and marriage, above the WORD which became flesh to fulfill the LAW on our behalf.

Niadna wrote:

So...do you see yourself as a critic, an anti or an 'extreme anti?"

I haven't been here long enough to put anybody in any 'file folder,' loose as the categories might be, so...where would you put yourself?

Niadna, I thought to suggest by my post that many people here do not always fit these categories. I can understand a wish you may have to set up general signposts to help decide how to respond to people. You might allow some expansion of your signpost set.

I am here to discuss questions about religion and faith and how they effect people and society. I am interested in questions to clarify what is real and what is of value. I hope to do so avoiding insults and distortions.