Fellow LDS/Mormons: Can all questioning of the Church accurately be labeled as "anti-mormon"?

Question

http://blog.mrm.org/2007/07/mormons-need-to-get-rid-of-their-own-n-word/

Upon referring to a certain poster on this board as an "anti-mormon," I was referred to the above link.

Do you sometimes think we are a little quick to judge the intentions of those who question our Church and attach false labels to them? Do you sometimes think that we are prone to cry "persecution" at the slightest propogation?

To be fair, we do take quite a mudslinging once in awhile, but just like the 3rd-grade bully stops picking on the 2nd-grade nerd when he stops crying, do you think that the world will be more tolerant to the Church when we acknowledge criticism instead of deflecting it with labels?

I think there are prejudicial concessions to be made on both sides, but that as members of God's true Church, it behooves us to make the first move in defeating the ugly monster of prejudice.

Your thoughts?

PS: If other Mormons think this is a healthy discussion worth having, please star the question so that your LDS contacts will see it.

Answer 1

Labeling can be very dangerous and can lead to hurt feelings. I rarely use the anti-Mormon label but I think if someone were to search through my posts I have lobbed a few labels at some posters -- to which I say I erred.

It is difficult to post anything with out sounding self-righteous to at least some people.

Self-righteousness is one of the worst things you can be (IMHO).

I say if you must say something is anti - Mormon then label the words anti and not the speaker (writer).

Anyway to all those I have offended I say I am sorry; I do not wish to offend. To those who have offended me I say I forgive any offense real or imaginary.

However I claim the right as an American Citizen to certain right afforded me by God and enumerated in the Constitution of the U.S.A. including but not limited to :


Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

To which I say that Yahoo R&S is a fabulous example of the exercising of these rights!!!

Answer 2

The responses to the above link seem mostly unfavorable to the premise. That indicates there seems to be a resistance to cease using the word yet, at least those who felt moved to answer. The choice to continue it's usage or not would have to come from the general authorities, not the membership. That's simply how the church is organized: from the top down.

My turn: Sometimes a question will be posted in a certain fashion that indicates a 'side' has been chosen, and responses may be all over the board. I'm guilty on that regard, but I do not, or at least try not, to attempt to be 'inflammatory'. Being advesarial does not necessarily mean 'foe'.

Answering post to preserve a point of view is equally difficult, and sometimes it's a chore to separate the poster from the post. Once again I'm as guilty as the next, but I try to at least research the 'other side of the coin', as the first side has usually been presented.

I certainly never intended to become a vicious 'anti' and preceived as a villainous cretin, but I knew from the beginning this was not going to be a walk in the park. I've reread some of my past posts, and I can say that some were handled without too much sympathy or compassion; others I think are spot on.

Learning to live with diverse attitudes is the beginning of acceptance. Without that, people will continue to run on emotions where reason could prevent a disaster.

Like, Peace

Answer 3

Just a couple of thoughts:

As John Bytheway often says, I find that I have many questions about the Church, just few doubts.

The question "Can all questioning of the Church accurately be labeled as 'anti-mormon'?" seems a bit extreme, since it uses the word 'all' (I hope you're okay with me questioning your question ;-) . I'm sure most of us would agree that some questioning is appropriate (and even 'pro-mormon') at some times and in some circumstances. For example, Joseph Smith’s sincere question, “which church should I join?” led to the first vision. Even the Savior himself questioned the Father as he was on the cross, asking why he had been forsaken.

Perhaps a better question would be, "at what point does questioning become 'anti-mormon'?"

I think what we really need is to get a better handle on the difference between good questions (questions that inform, clarify, and enlighten) and not-so-good questions (ones that are asked with the intent to attack one’s point of view).

Also, I’m not sure the term 'anti-mormon' should be outlawed entirely, since it can be an accurate description in some cases. We’ve all been in situations where people have expressed sentiments that were blatantly ‘anti-Black’ or ‘anti-Catholic’ or ‘anti-male’, and in the same way there are times when people say things that are, in an objective sense, ‘anti-mormon’.

However, like all terms with negative connotations, the term ‘anti-mormon’ should only been used when it is absolutely necessary and when it is 100% accurate.

Answer 4

You have a good point. Just like any religious organizations the LDS church has those extremists take any questioning of the church as anti-Mormon. But these are the same people that think birth control is a sin and that caffeine is the reason we don't drink coffee and should drink other things.

One thing that many, including those in the church, don't realize is that there are many aspects that the church leaders leave" to our own digression". There are many subjects that are neither right or wrong, bad or good. But there are some that to think there is and would like the church to control their lives. Just like the few that think that if someone is having some hard times, they must have sinned to deserve being punished.

Although there are a lot, the church members do need to be open minded on the thoughts and feelings of others.

Answer 5

I think what your talking about is the persecution complex most life-long and many converts have. The documentary, "The Mormons," does a better job in explaining this then I do, but I'll just say its complicated. We do get "picked on" a lot, and there's the persecution the early saints went through. Yes, I think we as a whole tend to be too sensitive. I don't think all criticism of the church is "anti-mormon" at all. I think that its sometimes easier to just cry "anti-mormon" then do a serious introspection.

Answer 6

A valid point. When I respond to questions in this forum, I try to ascertain up front whether the question is genuine. Much can be determined from the wording used in forming the question, or in the formation of some of the responses therefrom. A genuine question deserves a genuine answer. Otherwise, the question isn't worth answering at all. I cannot answer all the questions that pop up in here. I don't have that much time to give to it. I don't think any of us have so empty a life that this is the best use of our time except for a spare moment here or there. Thus, I, and I assume others as well, must pick and choose what questions I feel are most worthy of response. Many of the questions and comments are coming from genuine curiosity or intellectual interest. A few are even coming from spiritual longing. Those are the ones I try to answer. Some insincere questions have merited response only because of the subject matter and not because of the honesty of the question or comment.
In the end, I think it is up to each of us to subjectively determine whether or not the comments/questions are genuine or persecutorial and whether we want to give them the time of day.

Answer 7

I have occasionally posted non serious bashing questions, and probably deserve the title “Anti Mormon” but I have noticed that most of the Mormons on here think almost every question, whether it is or is not, is a bashing one. They are often very rude when responding to any questions serious or bashing, calling the questioner ignorant, anti, and sometimes not even answering there question at all, just telling them to get there facts straight before they ask such “hateful” questions. When they do this, they are being poor examples for the church, probably doing more harm for Mormonism than good, causing the rest of us to build up walls and become harder to convert. Mormons would appear more Christ like if they would respond politely to both serious and bashing questions.

Also they think Mormonism is truth fact, therefore anything non faith promoting is flawed, mean and anti, they call "Anti" sources biased and therefore untrustworthy, but pro sources are just as biased the other way.

Answer 8

Absolutely not. A big part of the lds faith is the missionary network - and where would they be without questioning?

I think most people need to chill a bit when it comes to religion. God knows what is in people's hearts - yours and theirs (meaning who is asking questions) and it's between Him and that person.

I always think 'why assume malice? ' Maybe it's concern or ignorance or.... point is there are a thousand reasons somebody might ask a religious question and sight a non-truth. I once was asked by someone of a different religion (which I had no knowledge of at the time) if I was lds, where were my horns and tail? I thought this was a joke - no way I thought this lady was serious...so I answered that we lose our tails at a very early age - like tadpoles, and that most of us are de-horned in our early teenage years. That's because I used to always go for the smart alec answer first, and investigate sincerity later. Imagine how difficult it was for me to approach my husband's family later and explain I didn't think this could have possible been a real questions.

again - why assume malice over whatever

Answer 9

I think comparing the term 'anti-mormon' to the 'n-word' for blacks is an interesting, and in many ways apt comparison.

Some people claim that blacks are too sensitive about prejudice. These people claim that blacks are too quick to ascribe any maltreatment as blatant racial prejudice, when in fact the people mistreating them may just be rude to everyone.

But there are enough times (yes, even in 2007) that blacks are mistreated because of their race that it makes them stop and wonder, each time someone is rude to them, whether that rudeness was motivated by prejudice or by a general bad temperment.

To a much lesser degree, the same is true for Mormons. As a Mormon, I've had so many people blatantly bash my religion (e.g., "you're going to Hell", "God will not listen to your prayers because you are a Mormon", "If you go on a mission you are only serving Satan", "The fact that some Mormon women choose to be home-makers is proof that Mormons are oppressing women") that I often wonder, when someone says something negative about my religion, if it is the result of anti-mormonism sentiment (notice I added the 'ism') or whether they're just that mean to everyone.

Something else that happens to me all the time (and I'm sure as Mormons you can relate) is that people will ask questions about Mormonism with the intent of starting a larger, counter-mormon discussion. For example, the other day I had this experience:

Q: Is it true that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy because he just wanted to have a bunch of women?

[This is a perfectly legitimate question. I'm glad the person asked me about this instead of just assuming the rumor was true.]

A: That's a rather complex issue. In the early days of the Church, Joseph Smith was heavily criticized for claiming the title of prophet, yet at the same time refusing to practice the Biblical tradition of polygamy which was practiced by all major Prophets in the Old Testament. There were likely many factors that -

[and then the person interrupted me to say:]

Q: How do you know Joseph Smith wasn't just making stuff up when he claimed he saw angels?

A: That is something you will have to find out for yourself, through prayer and -

Q: How do you know he wasn't just dreaming? Wasn't he an epileptic or something?

At this point, when the person wouldn't let me even finish a sentence before firing off another quesiton, I was beginning to seriously doubt that they were interested in listening to my answers.

Asking questions and getting answers can be fun and informative, but we've all had times when people were more interested in trying to force doubts on us than in actually having a productive religious discussion. Perhaps we've been a little burned over. I agree with the poster of this question that when someone asks us a question about our faith, we need to withhold judgement and assume the best about their intentions unless we recieve strong evidence to the contrary.

It's true that we've been burned in the past and we'll probably be burned in the future, but, to quote a common LDS hymn (How Firm a Foundation), "the flames shall not hurt thee, I only design thy dross to consume and thy gold to refine."

Answer 10

Can I just say that I REALLY appreciate this comment?

I read an answer to one of my questions a week or so ago regarding apologists where some critics of the mormon faith create a label in their mind where an "apologist" is simply someone that tries dishonestly to keep people believing in a lie. That way, the critic doesn't have to seriously think about what the "apologist" says or try to use logic to think about it, because anything he says is "dishonest."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aj2He6_FqbcdvgOnjqyGRpjty6IX?qid=20070705135947AAm3i7R

Well, I think LDS people can sometimes do the same thing with the word "anti-mormon." Because the word is used in the Temple Recommend interview and disqualifies you from attending the temple if you contribute to anything "anti-mormon," it is a very hot buzzword. As a general rule of thumb, LDS people can be somewhat quick to label all LDS Church critics as "anti-mormon," so that in their mind, they don't have to seriously think about what they say or defeat their opinions with logic, reasoning, and evidence. It is an inhibitor to introspective dialogue and a protector of perjorative bias.

I would also like to exhort LDS people to drop the "N-word" term "anti-mormon," or at least refrain from using it simultaneously for true persecution (being run from homes, tarred and feathered, ordered to extermination, etc.) and public disbelief of the LDS Church's tenets.