The Term Anti-Mormon

[_Jaybear]

If I was writing Ceeboo's OP, I would refine it to state I'm anti-lds.inc not anti-Mormon. Of course in Ceeboo's case I'm sure there are doctrines he is opposed to (Mormonism). Thus there really are three separate aspects here; The church, the doctrine, the members.

Of course, referring to the LDS church as LDS,inc may be classified as antimormon. Just like if I were to refer to the catholic church as catholic church, inc. Or The lutheran church, inc. etc.

Here is a clue for you: the members are the church. If the members were all crap heads, the church would suffer accordingly. One cannot separate the members from the church and its teachings on how to be christlike.

Nice call Rock Slider. Why me puctuates your point:

Unfortunately the members have been so indoctrinated that the "Church" is what is true, and they do view their selves as synonymous with the church.

The notion that they can't separate their identity from the LDS Church explains why many LDS are not able to engage in a critical discussion of the LDS Church, its history or its doctrine, without taking personal offense.

[_Ceeboo]

Rock, why me, and jaybear,

Thanks for the recent contributions.

in my opinion, this new thread development that introduces a discussion about a member being separate from the church is very interesting.

In my mind, this speaks directly to the Mormon vs. Mormonism idea (I happen to think that there is an enormous difference and that these differences are deep, complex, and wide). Having said that, I am also certainly willing to consider that what I think may be dead wrong.

Anyway, interesting stuff, in my opinion!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Blixa]

If I was writing Ceeboo's OP, I would refine it to state I'm anti-lds.inc not anti-Mormon. Of course in Ceeboo's case I'm sure there are doctrines he is opposed to (Mormonism). Thus there really are three separate aspects here; The church, the doctrine, the members.

There is a big difference between the member and the church. It would seem that it would be a good thing if the church WAS/IS the accumulative whole of its members, but this is not the case (hidden finances and huge corporation being one big clue).

Unfortunately the members have been so indoctrinated that the "Church" is what is true, and they do view their selves as synonymous with the church. More subliminally they would also associate closely with the doctrine ... i.e. an criticism of the doctrine is a criticism of them. I suppose this is true with any church.

The sad part is that the members are what is the beautiful part of Mormonism. I believe that is what Ceeboo is saying, he loves and respects the members but has issues with their doctrine and their church.

Absolutely. The institution and its membership have to be seen as conceptually different things for any level of analysis to occur. Otherwise, you have a monolithic, static and flat understanding of something which is complex, historically contingent and multi-dimensional.

[_honorentheos]

Unfortunately the members have been so indoctrinated that the "Church" is what is true, and they do view their selves as synonymous with the church. More subliminally they would also associate closely with the doctrine ... i.e. an criticism of the doctrine is a criticism of them. I suppose this is true with any church.

You know, Rockslider, this reflects my own thinking. With a caveat that everyone does this in some way, so it's not unusual that Mormons project their own identity onto their group affiliation to varying degrees. It's not just true of any church, it's true of any group. Including the groups and subgroups we see here on MDB.

Mainly, I'm wondering about Ceeboo's personal thoughts. He's been given 5 pages of information that ranged from the analytical to some that are almost folksy. And yet his question from the OP remained: does being anti-Mormonism make him anti-Mormon? Since no one on the board seems to be able to answer the question for him in a way that has satisfied him, it seems he's going to have to answer the question for himself. If he wants to share the answer, cool. If he doesn't want to share it, that's cool too.

Personally, I think Ceeboo is a different sort of anti-Mormon than any of the answers so far have addressed. He's said in the past that the fact many post-Mormon members of the board have become agnostic or atheist says something is wrong with Mormonism. My question to him about salvation was to dig deeper into that idea: is his problem with Mormonism that it's an ineffective form of christianity that fails the active Mormon? Or is his biggest concern that it creates atheists, a group I think he is without question anti- , even if he likes the people in a Ceeboo kind of way.

[Guest]

Why Me,
I see your anti-Catholic mindset hasn't changed.

Quit derailing the conversation. This isn't about Catholics, Lutherans, or any other religions.

Since you mentioned it, the LDS church, and the first presidency have incorporated themselves, so what's the problem? It isn't anti-mormon, or anything else to point out the obvious.

This just goes back to a couple of the things on the list I gave you earlier.

1. anti-Catholic
2. Functionally illiterate.


Shalom

[_hobo1512]

Hi Ceeboo,

Why do you still wonder if you're an anti-mormon as you suggested earlier in your response to Shiloh after all of the responses you had received up to the previous page?

I think that he is obsessed with this idea. I don't think that this is the first time he had a question about the term and whether or not he was antimormon. He needs to get over the term.

You mean the way you obsess about being Anti-Catholic, and an Anti-Semite?

Pot meet kettle.

Don't you get tired of being a hypocrite?

[Guest]

My question to him about salvation was to dig deeper into that idea: is his problem with Mormonism that it's an ineffective form of christianity that fails the active Mormon? Or is his biggest concern that it creates atheists, a group I think he is without question anti-

In my mind, the failure of Mormonism as a Christian religion sets up ex-Mormons to become atheists. So both statements are inextricably linked. That is what both of us see as the problem.

(Edited in response to his next post.)

[_Ceeboo]

Mainly, I'm wondering about Ceeboo's personal thoughts.

Ceeboo's thoughts are all over this thread (starting with the OP I authored)

He's been given 5 pages of information that ranged from the analytical to some that are almost folksy. And yet his question from the OP remained:

At what point do you feel the discussion should be terminated? Page 2? Page 4? After certain individuals have posted their thoughts?

does being anti-Mormonism make him anti-Mormon?

I don't think so but I started a thread on a discussion board to gain the perspectives/opinions of others who might be willing to share thier view with me. (See a the thread titled "The Term Anti-Mormon" on MDB)

Since no one on the board seems to be able to answer the question for him in a way that has satisfied him,

it seems he's going to have to answer the question for himself.

I thought I did!

If he wants to share the answer, cool. If he doesn't want to share it, that's cool too.

Cool!

Personally, I think Ceeboo is a different sort of anti-Mormon than any of the answers so far have addressed. He's said in the past that the fact many post-Mormon members of the board have become agnostic or atheist says something is wrong with Mormonism. My question to him about salvation was to dig deeper into that idea: is his problem with Mormonism that it's an ineffective form of christianity that fails the active Mormon? Or is his biggest concern that it creates atheists, a group I think he is without question anti- , even if he likes the people in a Ceeboo kind of way.

Do you see what happens when discussion continues? (Good thing we didn't shut this dialouge down after page 2, yes?)

Thanks for the contribution to the thead!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Ceeboo]

Hey MCB

In my mind, the failure of Mormonism as a Christian religion sets up ex-Mormons to become atheists.

I agree!

So both statements are inextricably linked. That is what both of us see as the problem.

Perhaps they are "inextricably linked" but I still see them (Momon and Mormonism) as being quite separate links......maybe on a very durable and hard to separate chain?

Anyway, thanks for adding your thoughts to the discussion.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_MCB]

Hard to separate chain is the crux of it. Sort of like a chain-gang, victims of their culture.