Fellow LDS/Mormons: "Anti-Mormon lies"?

Question

I think that many of us are inclined to cry wolf and say that critics of the LDS Church are "Anti-Mormon" and "spreading lies" about the Church to defame us, when often, such criticisms are not only based in truth, but motivated by a desire to "help us."

In my years of studying the history and doctrinal breadth of our Church (one of my passions), I have come to the realization that there is simply too much history and doctrine for any one person to know, and that the Church selectively chooses to teach us that doctrine and history which is most vital and most relevant to our salvation, not to mention the most faith-promoting. In the shuffle, there is a lot of doctrine and history that tends to go unmentioned in the Sunday School manuals, the Ensign magazines, and the General Conference talks. Since the internet wasn't around 50 years ago, a lot is missing from lds.org as well.

I would like to challenge us all to be willing to verify their information and understand where they are coming from before screaming "LIES" and assuming that since their information is not pro-Mormon that it must be false.

All it takes is a quick look on Wikipedia, a quick reference to History of the Church and/or Journal of Discourses, or an index search in your favorite Church historical book (mine happens to be Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling).

Your thoughts?

Nijg: I can understand your reluctance to accept Wikipedia, but as an active Wikipedia user and editor, I can say that it is still reliable for these reasons:

1. If sources are not cited, or if anyone disputes the neutrality of a section, it is flagged as such, and you know to verify the information elsewhere.

2. Both LDS and non-LDS can edit the information, so as soon as a blatant lie is discovered by an LDS person (most likely without a source), it can quickly be edited, with a source cited, to reflect the truth.

Answer 1

I've got to say it James, you've quickly become my third-favorite Mormon on this board, and may very well become my second-favorite before long!

Although I tend to sometimes ask questions that really aren't motivated by love, I'd say that at least 80% of my LDS questions are aimed at sharing knowledge and helping LDS people to at least become "anxiously engaged" in researching their Church. More than likely, since they are all so deeply converted to their Church, their research will only strengthen their testimonies. However, I find that a heavily-converted and well-versed Mormon is a much better friend and neighbor than a slighty-endoctrinated, mostly-converted and lightly-versed Mormon.

I've tried to say similar things to LDS people, but since it's coming from an "anti-mormon," most probably shrug it off and don't pay any note. If only people were aware of the unspoken history of the Church, I think it would at least bridge the gap between LDS faithful and LDS critics, so than the mean ones would simply lose interest and the nice ones would gain more respect for the members (and vice-versa).

That being said, I think that we critics (myself included) also need to acknowledge that even within the organizations that we criticize, there is a lot of good to be found. The LDS people are some of the nicest I have met. Just because Joseph Smith was dishonest, Brigham Young was racist, and John Taylor was sexist, that doesn't mean that their followers today represent the same sentiments.

A Star for your efforts.

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

I will say that much of what I read on here is not factual. Sometimes, I think that for many it is just based on a lack of understanding, they are only getting small pieces of the puzzle, or they hear things here and there.

Some information I read, while partially factual is taken way out of context a lot.

Some is just plain false and there is little or no basis to back it up. Some people talk about what happens in our temple ceremonies and it is many times blatently wrong- that can be verified becuase it is on file at the Library of Congress. Another one I read alot is that our girls are forced into marriages at very young ages, like 12-15 to men who are in their 50's and 60's. That is simply not true, I don't think it ever was.

The main issue I have with Wikpedia is that it does not refer to Mormons and just Members of the mainstream LDS Church, but lumps in the Fundamentalist groups with us. Maybe that is public perception as well. So many people think that the practices of the Fundamentalist groups are the same as the practices of the Mainstream LDS church. When I read the information on Wikipedia, I did not feel like there was much of an attempt to make that distinction, and it is a vital distinction to be made. Also, I was not aware that Wikipedia was a forum that is edited by just anybody- a great reason to not trust that information.

Many are basing their information about the church from what they see on the HBO show "Big Love". I don't have HBO, so I have never seen the show, but I guess they call themselves Mormon. That is a hard thing to combat because many people are getting misconceptions there, and thinking that is what we all think. But people should know better than to base their info on an HBO show.

I understand the point you are making. I try to only comment on the things I know for a fact about. But there are many people who are simply on here spreading false information, that they know is false.

Answer 4

It would be interesting to know the percentage of questions posted about Mormons were proffered without any intention of making Mormons look bad or discredit their faith. I do see honest questions out there. However, that is a subjective matter we could really never know, because even those who inquire through negativity and degradation often believe their act of doing such is out of care and concern for our salvation.

You are certainly correct there is so much information out there to learn about the Mormon faith that the Church itself could never present those in an hour long class over the course of a year. Equally important, and to which you mention, is the fact that most of these teachings are not necessary or relevant to our salvation. I certainly don't think it necessary for all members to know quotes of former prophets or other leaders that are not doctrine of the church or that will not affect their progression. If they do choose to research and learn these things, that is great, and up to them.

I have studied much about my faith, and I have likewise studied much about other faiths, for that is how I came to obtain my current understanding. But for some a simple answer to a prayer is, and should be, sufficient. The reason this is sufficient is because we are talking about religion. No matter how much you try and prove a religion is right or wrong you will never fully support those conclusions with objective facts. Religion is faith based, and truthfullness is personal. Can we doubt someone's claim that they received a witness from God? Sure we can, but we really never know, and we should therefore respect them and their belief in whatever that may be.

So, I do think that those who have the ability to provide referrences to questions which refute any false idea should go ahead and do so, but it can't be required (not to mention some people aren't sitting in their personal library). As religion is emotional and personal I cannot argue or criticize someone for saying to another, "what you are saying about my beliefs is false." (Not saying I don't get frustrated when I see it and what they are alleging is false actually was stated or did happen). They may just be at the beginning of the search for knowledge.

Lastly, I certainly believe many of the quotes and information these answerer proclaimed anti-Mormons use are from actual sources (exist), and that if Mormons look into these sources they may gain a greater knowledge of their faith, but I don't believe it is necessary. What is necessary, to the person who believes, whatever faith they may be, is that they have done some soul searching (and educated themselves - to whatever degree is necessary for that person) and truly do believe. If so, I will respect that person.

Answer 5

You know this is a problem that has nagged me for many years. I don't see why people can't just leave us alone and let us believe what we want to believe. They feel it's necessary to slide in a little snippy comment about the Mormons, and after awhile I start to get angry. We don't spread nasty rumors about other faiths, we let you believe what you want to believe. And a lot of non-Mormons I have discussions with, take things out of context and twist and turn it into something that can be used against us. I HATE that. I have done much research on my religion. I think one of the best sources for the truth about the beginning of the church is the Work and the Glory series. The family it is about is fictional, but the history and church events described are all real and truthful. There are chapter notes at the end of each chapter telling what is true and where you can find the information. But, I don't tolerate the ex-mormons trying to use everything in their power against us. You remind of Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery, and a small collective group that turned against the church in the 1830's. You really don't want me thinking that about you. Anyways I do like your point I will try and not get TOO defensive about my religion.

Answer 6

Well said.

While I do think that there are SOME "anti's" out there, most of the ones who disagree with our beliefs aren't really trying to tear us down. They are just trying to help us because they believe that their beliefs are "true", just as we feel with ours.

You make a good point about the Church history. It is extremely broad and complex. This can often result in a lot of gray areas that can lead to questioning and speculation about the Church's truthfulness.

But I agree with your concept of thinking. I think people in general can feel sensitive about their beliefs, and that includes us LDS. When one disagrees with us, it can sometimes be mistaken for an "attack", when it really isn't. Yes, there are some people who not only question our beliefs, but attack and judge LDS folks themselves...that's not right, nor necessary, in my opinion...but we shouldn't use those experiences to judge or assume that every non-Mormon is an Anti-Mormon.

I guess we all could show a little more patience, and try to refrain from throwing around the phrase "Anti-Mormon" so loosely. I appreciate your thoughts.

Answer 7

This is what I've been promoting since, well, some time ago: Read - read every thing that's available. Start with the church publications and move outward. Claiming "We don't teach that!" when in reality the church actually does, tends to show that you're either misinformed or uninformed.

There's also many traditional and cultural predispositions that are either uniquely mormon that perpetuate mormon mythology unconsciously, and in many instances, offers little agreement in just what is 'official doctrine'. Take the Word of Wisdom and cola drinks - there is no consensus.

Anyway, I used to be one of the 'peculiar people', and I'm still working out the kinks in my recent discovery. It's is so difficult to extricate yourself from something that originally defined who you were.

Answer 8

First, being "motivated by a desire to help us" is really rather silly, since it can be correctly said that WE are also motivated by a desire to help them. Why is their desire more pertinent than ours?

As far as based on truth, yes, lies are more palatable if mixed with truth.

As for history, you are probably right, to a point. However, the anti-Mormons are those who look at our church's history and insist that only the BAD stuff be emphasized, especially to those contemplating joining our church. For instance, they say that we should be practically on our knees in abject repentance for the Mountain Meadows massacre, but shrug off as totally unimportant the physical persecution that many of the Saints went thru, like he Haun's Mill massacre.

Or, they play up the times when Joseph Smith was arrested and put in jail. They don't seem to realize that one does not have to be guilty of something for them to be put in jail. Yes, there were several times when Joseph Smith was jailed, but there was NEVER NEVER even any indictments brought against him, let alone being convicted of any crime. The reason he was shot and killed in the Carthage jail was because they tried two or three times to bring him to trial, but they couldn't bring any indictments against him. It was getting close to them having to release him.

Doctrine is determined by scripture. Anti-Mormons bring up all sorts of things from such sources as the Journals of Discourses, and insist that this MUST be doctrine that we in the church must believe. But

a. if it doesn't match up with scripture, it's not doctrine.
b. even if it does match up with scripture, that does not mean that it's relevant for us today. That's why we have prophets and apostles, so that God can tell us TODAY what's relevant for US.

That brings me to General Conference talks. What they talk about in GC IS what is relevant for us today.

So, I question whether their motivation is to help US, or to help them justify to themselves that they are right and we are wrong.

Answer 9

I'm with you on this. I like history in general, both standard secular history and LDS Church history (I am, for the record, a faithfully practicing LDS member). One of the biggest things that just strikes me as odd is the accusation that I somehow don't study LDS Church history, especially when the specific individual making that accusation demonstrates that they've studied it less than I have, if at all (apparently, such individuals just can't accept that I can study the history of the Church and still believe it's true). Yeah, sometimes I come across a comment here on YahooAnswers that sends me scrambling to look up some reference or another (besides using such sites as LDS.org, I have a small library of Church books in my possession that I've gathered over the years), and I do try to cite the sources whenever I'm drawing specific points in my answers from anything other than direct first-hand information.

Yes, there are some bad points to go along with the Church, but show me one church out there that hasn't had its bad points as well (even Peter denied Christ three times; should we disreguard all of Christianity because Peter had a little bit of very human weakness?). Another odd thing is the mentality by those outside the Church that because we aren't regularly telling some certain story that isn't all good, that means we're "hiding" something. But anyone who studies LDS Church history knows that there are a lot of good stories as well that don't get told on a regular basis and are sometimes known only to a small handful of people. Just because a story (good OR bad) about a group isn't being repeated ad nauseam doesn't mean that the group is hiding anything. There are so many stories in the Church that it would take virtually a lifetime for a person to know all of them in sufficient detail to not take them out of context when telling them to others.

And while I realize that some people only want to "help us" by telling such stories, it doesn't help when they don't get their facts straight. When I see a supposedly "true" story that I know isn't 100% factual and in context (either by my own first-hand experiences or by doing reserch, just like they want me to do), it's hard not to want to smack the person upside the head, and I'm not the only Mormon like that. Then it winds up a case of us being very much like the villiagers in the story of the boy who cried wolf - we've been lied to so many times, it's hard to find it in our hearts to believe any harsh thing anyone says against the Church, no matter how politely or how much of a basis in fact their statement might be, because we think we just might be burned again. Yes, some people outside the Church don't do that deliberately - sometimes they don't realize that the story isn't totally accurate (sometimes you'd have to look up information in books that haven't been published in many years and have long since left general circulation, even in places such as Utah, to verify how accurate the information is, a difficult effort at best for more than a few subjects that come up around here) - but it doesn't change the fact that it's still annoying.

And as a side note - one of the popular methods of anti-Mormons is when they cites some comment or other from a General Authority; even when the quote is totally correct, the anti-Mormons try to make it appear as if it's canon Church doctrine when it was just the personal opinion of that particular leader - there's actually very much a difference between canon doctrine and personal opinion, but apparently the anti-Mormons seem to operate on the belief that when someone becomes a General Authority in the Church, that person then somehow looses the right to have personal opinions. There's a reason that the Church rarely directly publishes books - it's in an effort to avoid people confusing doctrine from opinion. (If you look at books written by General Authorities, they're virtually always published through Deseret Book - this even includes Pres. Hinkley's "Standing for Something"! I've only seen one book outside of the scriptures and various Church manuals that has "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" listed as the publisher; it's "Pure Religion" by Elder Glen L. Rudd, an emeritus Seventy, and it's a book on the Church welfare system.)

Answer 10

TRUE TO THAT. I hate it when people do that and it feels that they have gotten to so many people when they lie about our( idk if your lds) church. That is a problem with Wikipedia because anyone can edit it and could be lying when other people try to find out about us and find that we do stuff that we really don't. I stared your question by the way because it was really good even though it wasn't really a question but more of agreement/non agreement kind of thing.