Anti-Mormonism ineffective? So says bsix

[_asbestosman]

But on the whole, I've found that people just don't really care enough about it either way. it is what it is.

That's also been what's so frustrating in dealing with this stuff with my family. They just don't care about it. They're happy, and don't want to 'disrupt' things.

But do they also leave others alone who choose to examine it and choose to leave as long as those apostates don't push their discoveries on others?

[_dartagnan]

Mind you, these are 'utah' Mormons - so they may be kinda different.

I was thinking that just as I read this.

Yes, Utah Mormons tend to be a "different" variety of LDS. It seems to be primarily social for them. If they do not care about the theological arguments against it, it might be because they really don't care about theology at all. It is all about getting along with their social group.

But as one who has experienced the Church outside of Utah and in three different countries, I sense things are a bit different. If I wanted to I could probably single-handidly reduce LDS membership in our stake by half, just by catching everyone by surprise the next time I am asked to speak at a fireside (which I am frequently called to do). And I wouldn't even really have to start attacking the Church. All I would have to do is talk about the controversial issues in a round-about way as if I expect the audience to already know about them. Perhaps by sharing my experiences with some anti-Mormons online who criticize the Church for its blacks/priesthood policy. I can pretty much tell you that the majority of Brasilian Mormons have no earthly idea what this is about. Of course none of this would work in Utah because the membership is mostly white and they have been, to some extent, apologetically immunized from concern over the more obvious controversial matters.

However, virtually all Brasilians in Brasilia are related to someone who is negro and they are unfamiliar with all LDS apologetics. They would not put up with it. They would not be inclined to rationalize it all away with a ""the Church is still true" attitude. They would probably be more upset with the fact that nobody ever told them about it.

As Kevin Barney rightfully put it, to baptize someone without teaching them about this old policy, is nothing short of "missionary malpractice." And this is especialy true for those who are probably related to someone who is black.

[_Who Knows]

But on the whole, I've found that people just don't really care enough about it either way. it is what it is.

That's also been what's so frustrating in dealing with this stuff with my family. They just don't care about it. They're happy, and don't want to 'disrupt' things.

But do they also leave others alone who choose to examine it and choose to leave as long as those apostates don't push their discoveries on others?

Yep, I'd say that's pretty much true.

[_Who Knows]

Yes, Utah Mormons tend to be a "different" variety of LDS. It seems to be primarily social for them. If they do not care about the theological arguments against it, it might be because they really don't care about theology at all. It is all about getting along with their social group.

It's probably the case for those who have grown up in the church. And utah just happens to have a ton of those.

Those who have converted probably actually cared about the theology enough to join the church, so the reverse would probably be true.

Those who grew up in the church probably just never care one way or the other - it's just the lifestyle they grew up with and are comfortable with. I can't tell you how many times i heard in the MTC "I never had a REAL testimony until i got here to the MTC" (in other words "i didn't really care until i came here"). And even then, I wonder how many of them were just phonies - saying it because everyone else was saying it. i did. ;)

[_Dr. Shades]

If I wanted to I could probably single-handidly reduce LDS membership in our stake by half, just by catching everyone by surprise the next time I am asked to speak at a fireside (which I am frequently called to do).

Not to derail your topic, but this intrigues me. Why are you frequently asked to speak at firesides? Is it because people know you have websites and have defended Mormonism online? Or is it for other reasons?

Feel free to start a new thread on this if you'd like.

[_dartagnan]

I think it is because Americans here tend to be the most active, dependable and entertaining. They like our American accents too.

When I spoke at firesides in the States, it was more to do with my background as an apologist.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I have no idea why, but everyone seemed to have been bothered by what I said, as if I had destroyed one of their precious assumptions. And again, I don't know why because this is such an irrelevant point regarding the truthfulness of the gospel. Smith could had died while shooting at his attackers and the Church could still be true.

I think the reason people are bothered when their assumptions about small points of LDS history are smashed is because they were told one thing (through gossip or a faith promoting rumor or a lesson or whatever) and to learn the truth is a shock back to reality. It may make them start thinking "well if that wasn't true, then what about *fill in the blank*?" They may begin to wonder if there are other lies or half truths they've been told about their religion. This could lead to research and possibly apostacy....

[_grayskull]

Didn't someone bring up a video clip with DCP pleading with Mormons to share their testimonies to counteract the strong anti message on the web? It seems to me, at least, many apologists believe the anti message has some bite. Heck, FARMS and FAIR wouldn't exist if they believed the anti messages are innocuous. In fact, if Bsix is right, then the church is probably false as it's a central belief that in the last days "even the elect will be deceived" and the great trials of faith and so on.

This is the usual rationalization offered and assumed. If someone falls it is because they weren’t really Mormon to begin with

Funny, it parallels the born agains that apologists are so annoyed by who believe that Christians who backslide were never saved in the first place.

Bsix is trying to rob Mormons of their agency. Maybe he believes Satan was not really ever one in authority before God in the preexistence, and God created him evil. Why doesn't he just become a born again Christian himself?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I'm pretty confident that, even if a signed confession from Joseph Smith were produced, there would still be a large number of believers, and the church would still survive.

You know, this is a very good point, and explains why "anti-mormonism" hasn't had a huge impact on church membership. I think the internet has slowed church growth tremendously, but the fact that the church continues to grow at any rate at all, despite all the evidence against it, shows that it isn't about logic, truth, or believability. If Hinckley stood up and announced he has never had a real revelation and that as far as he's concerned the church is a fraud, he would simply be escorted out, Monson would take over, and the church would continue on like a car going over a speedbump. Apologists would quote the scriputre about even the elect being led astray to explain Hinckley's apostacy, and that would make the faithful happy and nobody would question.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I've said many times that there's no need for polemical, distorted attacks on the church. It's easy (and fair) to judge the church by the truth.

The problem (for the EVs) is that if they went that route, they'd basically be tearing apart their own religion at the same time.

This is mostly true, although I think that EVs have a lot more room for liberalizing and rationalizing than the LDS do. Our entire religion revolves around the person of Jesus Christ, about whom there's so little historical information that it would be difficult to falsify any of the things EVs believe about him. It's true that Daniel is a pseudepigraphon, that a lot of sayings attributed to Jesus may not be authentic, that several Pauline epistles, the Petrine epistles, and Revelation probably were not written by the people to whom they're attributed, that most of Genesis is probably mythological... Then again, the distance between us and these texts is so great, that we have some breathing room. We can continue to believe in a literal Exodus from Egypt, for example, without too much trouble. And once you've rejected 1 Timothy as a spurious epistle (that's where the "all scripture is God-breathed" verse is found), it doesn't even matter whether we throw out certain myths. There's no more reason that our scriptures have to be inerrant. EV'ism can survive as long as the person of Jesus Christ is not utterly discredited. And like I said, it's difficult to discredit him based on the little information we have.

By contrast, the LDS faith depends almost entirely upon the credibility of Joseph Smith. He is chronologically close to us, and we have a lot of documentary evidence by which to judge him. It isn't all that difficult to discredit him. And once he is discredited, there is not a lot of reason for the LDS church to continue to exist as an independent entity, except in the sense that the CoC is doing so-- as basically a mainstream Christian denomination.

Anyway,

-CK