The Term Anti-Mormon

[_Markk]

Hey people!

The following cliff notes are from a discussion I had with a few in real life friends.

As we enjoyed a delicious lunch together, the topic of Mormonism came up and this evolved into a dialouge about the term "anti-Mormon" (whatever that even means).

Anyway, as we all began talkng about this term, I asked my friends the following question:

Why do my LDS friends see it as perfectly okay for LDS people to go out (missionaries as well as others) and tell other people the 'truth' about Mormonism (Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, golden plates, translation process, etc, etc).

BUT: If Ceeboo was to tell my LDS friends the 'truth' about Mormonism (Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, golden plates, translation process, etc, etc) I am instantly and surely labeled an anti-Mormon.

I have a hunch (just a hunch as I am open to further thoughts, ideas, and perspectives from y'all) that the use of the term 'anti-Mormon' is, by design, a stop sign to discussion.

for what it's worth, I also believe that things like "I know the church is true", "I know Joseph is a prophet of God", and/or " I know the Book of Mormon is true", are also things that put an immediate halt to discussion.

While I certainly do not consider myself an anti-Mormon, I do indeed consider myself to be anti-Mormonism.

Am I an Anti-Mormon?

What say you?


Ohhh, and Happy Thanksgiving!

Peace,
Ceeboo

On a side note, how does a Mormon defend Mormonism to a athiest that might say the same things a evangelical would say about Joseph Smith and its history? They are not anti Mormon so much as "anti religion". I believe calling some a anti is just a way out as you suggested.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey again, honor

Hi Ceeboo,

I appreciate your willingness to engage the questions.

No problem.

My questions were aimed at refining how I would answer your question in the OP. Your answer to the first question was not surprising as you've clearly said you are against Mormonism.

Yes.

Where I'm unclear, even still, is if you feel Mormonism provides the appropriate rights and knowledge sufficient for salvation?

Why do you keep asking me questions about Salvation?
And how do your questions about my view of Salvation help you refine how you would answer my question in the OP (Did you read the OP because I authored it and I don't recall mentioning Salvation in it?)

You realize I don't believe the claims of Mormonism, yes?

Okay. I'll try to answer your question about Salvation as best I can.

"Appropriate rights and knowledge sufficient for Salvation"? (That sounds so clubish to me)
In my view - Salvation is not a right, it is not earned by knowledge, it is not provided by a religious organization, and it certainly is not determined by what labels we place firmly upon our broken chests.

Salvation is a gift (Free) that is given to ALL of creation by the Creator. (The Good News)

Along those lines, I'd agree that Mormonism inherently places itself above others on the grounds to acheive exhaltation in Mormon theology requires membership and faithfulness to Mormonism.

You would agree with me on what?

There is a highest heaven in the Mormon faith that is unattainable without becoming Mormon.

Yes, I am aware of this.

Does Mormonism teach that just becoming Mormon is enough to live with God for all eternity? My understanding is that Mormonism teaches an entire list of things one must do to earn this Salvation.

That was a lot of work for a simple reply to the OP question.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_ludwigm]

I have my homework. I'll return and report.

Excellent, perhaps you can also report if Satan did not hire ministers, and that the only true religion was to be found in what Peter, James and John would privately share with Adam and Eve. Thus if you have not received it from the resurrected Peter, James and John, via appropriate names signs and tokens ... you are hearing the gospel of the god of this world.

In the case of Catholics, not only are they a church of the god of this world, but have excelled to the wonderful point of being referred to as the whore of the earth.

Things that I've never understand.

Peter, James and John, in the time slice of Adam and Eve? Was they pre-resurrected?
And protestant ministers? Before aeons (or at least thousands) before Luther & Calvin, before protestant reformation ?

[_palerobber]

Mormons moved into areas, and started taking over, bullying (although discreetly) their way into positions of power, and the people pushed back.

Also, when they caused problems they couldn't fix, the early Mormons high tailed it out of places, and blamed it on persecution.

Let's also not forget how smith and company over (often illegaly)used Habeous Corpus to get their way.

Can you blame the non Mormons in the crowd for being concerned, and agitated after hearing a speech like that? Get real.

Your own copy paste shows the Mormons of the time knew what they were doing, and incited the anger toward them. Yet none take responsibility for it.

Shalom

Put Jews in the place of Mormons and smith and co. and we have a very bigoted piece of writing.

whereas if you put "chocolate cake" in the place of "Mormons" this piece of writing takes on a rather tasty tone.

also, and if you put "F. You" in place of "Shalom" then i begin to think hobo1512 is just making a personal attack.

there's lots to consider here.

[_RockSlider]

Things that I've never understand.

Peter, James and John, in the time slice of Adam and Eve? Was they pre-resurrected?
And protestant ministers? Before aeons (or at least thousands) before Luther & Calvin, before protestant reformation ?

The endowment is not a history lesson, but a promise i.e. the endowment of the participant. It's a promised future event, for those that meet the requirements of exaltation, that they themselves will become Adam's and Eve's of their own worlds.

You know, Smith couplet, Adam God etc. Not a real popular understanding anymore.

[_ludwigm]

You know, Smith couplet, Adam God etc. Not a real popular understanding anymore.

i KNOW.

[_MCB]

also, and if you put "F. You" in place of "Shalom" then i begin to think hobo1512 is just making a personal attack. there's lots to consider here.

Hobo does an excellent job. My anti-whiner feelings are mellowing to the point that I am ready to take him off of ignore.

[_MsJack]

What Stak and EA said.

However, I think you also have to note this part of the FAIR Wiki article on "Anti-Mormon" (quoting Dan Peterson):

The hallmark of anti-Mormonism is an agenda, whether covert or openly expressed, of combating the faith of the Latter-day Saints and opposing their church.

How many people are actually willing to say "I have an agenda against the faith of the Latter-day Saints and I'm opposed to their church"? Few, even though a minority of people certainly do fit that bill. So then, how do LDS apologists determine that someone has an agenda against the LDS church? How do they interpret someone's actions as reflective of an agenda against the LDS church rather than as evincing a more neutral, dispassionate sort of criticism?

If it's convenient for them to accuse you of being "anti-Mormon" and having an agenda, then you'll be called an "anti-Mormon" and accused of having an agenda. It's a witch hunt, plain and simple.

I can tell you in no uncertain terms that I do not have any agenda against the LDS church and I am not opposed to it in any meaningful sense. I just had my husband's entire bishopric over earlier this month, wanting to know how they can better serve and educate my special needs daughter (she's what's known as a "one-on-one" at school for a reason). I told them about how the children's ministry team does it at my church and said I would be happy to meet with their Primary presidency or her Sunday school teacher and talk about how to manage her better. If I were opposed to the LDS church, why would I be helping them teach their religion to my daughter? I would just tell them that teaching their religion to my daughter is between them and my husband and none of my business.

But that's not going to stop certain apologists from calling me an "anti-Mormon" when it's convenient for them. If they couldn't poison the well with pejorative name-calling, heaven help them, they might actually have to address my arguments or something.

[_MCB]

Welcome back, Jack.

[Guest]

Put Jews in the place of Mormons and smith and co. and we have a very bigoted piece of writing.
whereas if you put "chocolate cake" in the place of "Mormons" this piece of writing takes on a rather tasty tone.

also, and if you put "F. You" in place of "Shalom" then i begin to think hobo1512 is just making a personal attack.

there's lots to consider here.

Have you been following this?

Did you see my previous post that stated, Mormons get upset when you use their own theology and history to debunk their claims? That is what this post is about.

Just so you know, I don't use the F bomb, even covertly. I'm old. I could die at any time. I don't want there to be any confusion as to what my last words or statement were. I will tell you something straight up. Also, I'm Irish, we don't know how to be subtle. It's genetic.

It is you my friend that appears to be making a "personal attack", so you might want to think about that. Trust me, when I make a personal attack you will see/know the difference.

Shalom (I really mean Shalom)