Anti-Mormonism, Another Take

[Failed Prophecy]

The ex-Mormon, post-Mormon, liberal-Mormon, etc. world has largely left the world of counter-cult ministries behind. By counter-cult I just mean Christians who were publishing the seedier elements of Mormon history and doctrine with largely religious motivations: they thought the LDS church was false, that their version of Christianity was true, and that publishing on Mormonism was a means of defeating the former in favor of the latter.

I think this is a case of amnesia and biting the hand that feeds you. The counter-cult ministries provided a service to the Mormon community that only they could provide at the time. They were the only group of people that both had motivations to study Mormonism and a free hand to publish on it. Mormons had motivations, but the consequences to Mormons publishing truthful information in the mid 20th century were severe. The LDS church wielded this weapon with impunity, it was easier to excommunicate and shun authors rather than deal with their writings. See the examples of Fawn Brodie and Juanita Brooks.

Secular research into Mormonism was a tiny fraction of what it is now. Before Rodney Stark's claims that Mormonism was about to become a world religion, nobody cared all that much about Mormonism.

That left only the counter-cult people to do research and publish on Mormonism. The LDS church vacillated between denouncing these publications (and bringing attention to it) or ignoring it (and therefore letting the research stand).

Walter Martin Wesley Walters did work on the early history of Joseph Smith that wasn't known or published about. He was the one who figured out that an 1820 revival in Palmyra was highly unlikely, 1824 being a much better fit. He also discovered the court documents for the 1826 trial of Joseph Smith, something that Mormon scholars didn't know existed (and likely didn't want it to exist).

Gerald and Sandra Tanner republished tons of early Mormon literature. In today's internet world, this isn't a big deal since any schlub can throw up stuff on the internet. But pre-internet this took a lot of time, effort, and money, i.e. you needed motivation. The LDS church wasn't publishing any of this, they were more than happy to let that stuff languish. They also were the primary movers in the study of the Book of Abraham by publishing the Kirtland Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian language. If it were not for them, that would have languished for decades more and the LDS church probably would not have let people have access to the rediscovered papyrii. I'll also add this speculation, I think that the new Mormon history of the 1970's was not motivated by scholarly desires to liberalize access to Mormon history. It was an attempt by LDS leaders to counteract the Tanners by doing better research using trusted Mormon scholars. It didn't work out so well for them.

Even the tawdrier stuff had some positive aspects for the current post-Mo world. Ed Decker lambasted the Mormon temple, which people rightly point out as unfair and sacreligous. But it was only a few years after Decker spilled the beans that the LDS church changed the endowment to take out the most offensive parts. And a lot of Mormons learned about Adam-God from Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults. This was at the same time as the LDS authorities were denying its existence.

The secular world has moved beyond all of this, but were it not for this earlier work, work that Mormons did not do themselves because of fear of retribution from LDS leaders, the knowledge of Mormonism today would not be the same. It would probably be less than it is now, and if not less then certainly discovered more recently. Scholarship requires courage and motivation. Pre-internet it seems that the one group that had both were the counter-cult anti-Mormons.

Edit: Corrected name.

[Gadianton]

Hard to disagree much with this. I'd also say that I was pretty biased against counter-cult EVs from the first time I was given anti-lit by a nutty youth ministry kid prior to mission up until I found myself on ZLMB interacting with the face of FARMS. Then I got a glimpse of just how bad my side of the story had been.

I think in addition to the points you've made, it's also important to point out that Mormonism is a heavy proselyting religion, and so what do you expect, that people are just going to sit back and let Mormons say whatever they want about themselves and about the supposed apostasy of the rest of Christianity, and they themselves being the only true church on the planet and nobody ever counters them?

Religions aren't known for believing things based on good reasons for believing them. The fact that counter-cults make a big deal out of things about Mormonism that seem kind of dumb, or like throwing stones in glass houses, well, that's religion. Eastern Orthodox and Rome split over stupid crap like whether images in Church are acceptable. Mormons want people to join their church for dumb reasons, EV's reasoning for rejecting all of that maybe dumb in its own right, but we have to allow people to make their decisions about religions from a standpoint of faith, which generally includes a whole lot of nonsense.

[Res Ipsa]

I really think that we should not treat the efforts of the Tanners to make public the history that the church was concealing from the counter-cult Christian ministries. I am totally on board with the notion that the Tanner’s laid the groundwork for the New Mormon history and the field of Mormon Studies. Both required something other than the faithful history created and promoted by the church itself.

I don’t credit counter cult ministries with anything other than religious bigotry. The Godmakers and other sensational and, in my opinion, dishonest God-believer on God-believer attacks with any constructive development in history or sociology.

[Kishkumen]

I really think that we should not treat the efforts of the Tanners to make public the history that the church was concealing from the counter-cult Christian ministries. I am totally on board with the notion that the Tanner’s laid the groundwork for the New Mormon history and the field of Mormon Studies. Both required something other than the faithful history created and promoted by the church itself.

I don’t credit counter cult ministries with anything other than religious bigotry. The Godmakers and other sensational and, in my opinion, dishonest God-believer on God-believer attacks with any constructive development in history or sociology.

But that is the model their work is clearly coming out of. I think what they did was a lot more valuable. But along the way they were engaging in the same basic task of seeking to delegitimize the religious competition through cottage industry publications. They deserve their due, and they certainly brought more value to the discussion, but the goal was the same. "Don't be Mormon; Mormon isn't Christian; leave Mormonism for real Christianity." I don't see how anyone gets around that.

[Kishkumen]

Gerald and Sandra Tanner republished tons of early Mormon literature. In today's internet world, this isn't a big deal since any schlub can throw up stuff on the internet. But pre-internet this took a lot of time, effort, and money, i.e. you needed motivation. The LDS church wasn't publishing any of this, they were more than happy to let that stuff languish. They also were the primary movers in the study of the Book of Abraham by publishing the Kirtland Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian language. If it were not for them, that would have languished for decades more and the LDS church probably would not have let people have access to the rediscovered papyrii. I'll also add this speculation, I think that the new Mormon history of the 1970's was not motivated by scholarly desires to liberalize access to Mormon history. It was an attempt by LDS leaders to counteract the Tanners by doing better research using trusted Mormon scholars. It didn't work out so well for them.

Even the tawdrier stuff had some positive aspects for the current post-Mo world. Ed Decker lambasted the Mormon temple, which people rightly point out as unfair and sacreligous. But it was only a few years after Decker spilled the beans that the LDS church changed the endowment to take out the most offensive parts. And a lot of Mormons learned about Adam-God from Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults. This was at the same time as the LDS authorities were denying its existence.

The secular world has moved beyond all of this, but were it not for this earlier work, work that Mormons did not do themselves because of fear of retribution from LDS leaders, the knowledge of Mormonism today would not be the same. It would probably be less than it is now, and if not less then certainly discovered more recently. Scholarship requires courage and motivation. Pre-internet it seems that the one group that had both were the counter-cult anti-Mormons.

I am more ambivalent about all of this. I love the publication of old documents, so that part is fine with me. It is the goal of trashing another religion and not examining your own in the same way that strikes me as brazenly hypocritical in the extreme. Also, it is dishonest, in my view, to condemn a religion based on the problems in its history, as though this were not a pretty common thing: to have problems in history that make people uncomfortable today. Protestantism is funny because the almost exclusive focus on the Bible, and often without any real historical consciousness of early Christianity among the rank and file, allows people to blissfully ignore all of the quirky aspects of their history and accept current Biblical interpretations as eternal divine truths. So, what we can glean from this is if you ignore anything that is problematic, you can feel just fine about your religion. Oh, but you can always point out the embarrassing problems in the history of another tradition and win over their people to your point of view.

There is no doubt that Christian anti-Mormons have revealed things that the LDS Church wanted to hide or not discuss. Their motives and hypocrisy remain a problem for me.

[Failed Prophecy]

I am more ambivalent about all of this. I love the publication of old documents, so that part is fine with me. It is the goal of trashing another religion and not examining your own in the same way that strikes me as brazenly hypocritical in the extreme. Also, it is dishonest, in my view, to condemn a religion based on the problems in its history, as though this were not a pretty common thing: to have problems in history that make people uncomfortable today.

Sandra has dealt with this objection in her Mormon Stories interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyP2dQpnyWI&t=692s

Summary: Sandra does know and has looked into the issues. Post-Mormons probably won't like her answers or find them insufficient.

If the objection is that Sandra must publish against Christianity because she also publishes against Mormonism, then I find that objection not serious. For better or worse high school educated amateurs, like the Tanners, can get involved in research on Mormonism because it doesn't require knowledge of ancient languages nor technical philosophical issues. Publishing against Christianity generally requires one or both. Sandra doesn't have that, therefore she really can't publish against Christianity (assuming she decided she wanted to do that).

Protestantism is funny because the almost exclusive focus on the Bible, and often without any real historical consciousness of early Christianity among the rank and file, allows people to blissfully ignore all of the quirky aspects of their history and accept current Biblical interpretations as eternal divine truths. So, what we can glean from this is if you ignore anything that is problematic, you can feel just fine about your religion. Oh, but you can always point out the embarrassing problems in the history of another tradition and win over their people to your point of view.

Mormonism is funny because of the almost exclusive focus on the modern revelation, and often without any real historical consciousness of early Mormonism among the rank and file, allowing people to blissfully ignore all of the quirky aspects of their history and accept modern revelations as eternal divine truths. So, what we can glean from this is if you ignore anything that is problematic, you can feel just fine about your religion. Oh, but you can always point out the embarrassing problems in the history of another tradition and win over their people to your point of view.

i.e., it cuts both ways

There is no doubt that Christian anti-Mormons have revealed things that the LDS Church wanted to hide or not discuss. Their motives and hypocrisy remain a problem for me.

This is what I mean by biting the hand that feeds you. In scholarship the motives or the hypocrisy of the author is immaterial. The truth of what they say is what matters.

[Failed Prophecy]

I don’t credit counter cult ministries with anything other than religious bigotry. The Godmakers and other sensational and, in my opinion, dishonest God-believer on God-believer attacks with any constructive development in history or sociology.

As I stated in my previous reply, the motives of the author shouldn't matter, what matters is the content of what they said. That's largely the point I'm trying to make. Even if people see the ministries as bigoted hypocrites with evil intentions, they still published truths that Mormons were unable and unwilling to publish.

[Res Ipsa]

I don’t credit counter cult ministries with anything other than religious bigotry. The Godmakers and other sensational and, in my opinion, dishonest God-believer on God-believer attacks with any constructive development in history or sociology.

As I stated in my previous reply, the motives of the author shouldn't matter, what matters is the content of what they said. That's largely the point I'm trying to make. Even if people see the ministries as bigoted hypocrites with evil intentions, they still published truths that Mormons were unable and unwilling to publish.

I’m not talking about motives.

[Kishkumen]

Summary: Sandra does know and has looked into the issues. Post-Mormons probably won't like her answers or find them insufficient.

Yes, I did not think she had looked into the issues very deeply. I was not impressed, and I don't find her answers sufficient.

If the objection is that Sandra must publish against Christianity because she also publishes against Mormonism, then I find that objection not serious. For better or worse high school educated amateurs, like the Tanners, can get involved in research on Mormonism because it doesn't require knowledge of ancient languages nor technical philosophical issues. Publishing against Christianity generally requires one or both. Sandra doesn't have that, therefore she really can't publish against Christianity (assuming she decided she wanted to do that).

Well, no, that's a straw man. So, no. There was never any suggestion that she had to publish criticisms of Christianity. Talk about silly.

And no one said anything about studying ancient languages to understand Christianity and Mormonism. What I am saying is that she attacks Mormonism in the name of her Christianity, holding Mormonism to a standard that she does not hold Christianity to. I find that fundamentally hypocritical, but that is probably to be expected, sadly, since she started off as a disgruntled LDS person and found the anti-cult ministry model convenient to her purpose of attacking Mormonism as a Christian.

Mormonism is funny because of the almost exclusive focus on the modern revelation, and often without any real historical consciousness of early Mormonism among the rank and file, allowing people to blissfully ignore all of the quirky aspects of their history and accept modern revelations as eternal divine truths. So, what we can glean from this is if you ignore anything that is problematic, you can feel just fine about your religion. Oh, but you can always point out the embarrassing problems in the history of another tradition and win over their people to your point of view.

i.e., it cuts both ways

Sure, and I am comfortable with that, since I do not see Mormons out there specifically attacking Christianity as their profession. So, the going both ways argument stops short of Mormon people making a living actively tearing down Christianity, which arguably does not happen. Not impressed with your argument.

This is what I mean by biting the hand that feeds you. In scholarship the motives or the hypocrisy of the author is immaterial. The truth of what they say is what matters.

Yes, well, we are no longer dependent these days on hostile Christians who make a living tearing down Mormonism to find out what is going on.

[I Have Questions]

we are no longer dependent these days on hostile Christians who make a living tearing down Mormonism to find out what is going on.

How do we find out the details of what is going on in Mormonism these days? (And by details I mean the stuff the Church doesn’t want us to know.)