LDS and LDS Critics: What do you think of Decker?

Question

I saw a similar question, but about the Tanners asked earlier. What do you think of Ed Decker's work?

1. Purely anti-Mormon
2. Critical of Mormonism but not anti
3. Some parts anti and other parts critical but not anti
4. Completely stupid and not worth listening to

I borrowed parts of this question from Vitriol. I hope he doesn't mind.

Answer 1

I used to be an anti-Mormon. (My full story is on www.mormonconverts.com called "It was as though scales fell from my eyes.") I would say 1 and 4. He is doing what he is doing based purely on hatred. He doesn't love the Mormon people at all. I should know - I was filled was obsessive hatred when I was an anti-Mormon.

Much of what he claims is Mormon doctrine is complete lies, and when we Mormons come out and say that it is lies, he claims it is the "strong meat" of the gospel that Mormons don't tell people about. What rubbish is that! And yet sadly people have believed him.

He has claimed that Mormons have tried to kill him. The one I particularly laugh at is when he claimed he was poisoned at a pizza restaurant in Scotland. He said that he was eating a meal with a friend of his plus an unknown companion. The unknown man when up to get him a refill of his drink, and soon thereafter Ed became seriously sick, and doctors told him this man - who Ed now knew to be a Mormon - had put poison in his drink.

Of course this has been disproved in every way, but any British (that includes Scottish) person reading this will know that it is a lie, because NO British restaurants, not even British branches of Pizza Hut, offer free refills. When you finish your drink you call over the waitress, and order another drink, which you pay for. There is no restaurant in Scotland where a companion would get up to get you a refill.

I have watched his cartoon and it's just stupid and totally misrepresents LDS doctrine. The guy is just a fake with a pathetic persecution complex.

Answer 2

I read “The God Makers” book soon after joining the Church as a college student in the early ’80s and even with the limited knowledge of a new convert, it was obvious to me that he couldn’t have actually believed what he was writing, because so many statements and ideas were mutually conflicting. It was clear to me that he was knowingly writing blatant lies. I also must have bought a VHS at the same time, because I remember watching it before my mission and thus before going to the temple, and it was obvious that he wasn’t presenting things on the level. I’d therefore classify him as 1 and thus 4, as far as the world should be concerned.

The same labels apply to Walter Martin for the same reason. Even without knowing much about Jehovah’s Witnesses, you can see conflicts in his so-called logic in attacks on them that just makes him sound ridiculous, similar to how he was simply recycling the usual anti-Mormon garbage without regard to coherency or truth, or any attempt to take a look at source documents as an honest truth-seeker.

I never did read much from the Tanners, but of course Martin quoted their stuff a lot, so I don't have a high opinion for the sincerity of what they purport to be truthful.

Answer 3

As one who hasn't had much exposure to his work, I did some (ok, so I read the Wikipedia article) research on him.

Even the Tanners don't condone his stuff!!...

My opinion is torn between 1 and 4....
On the one hand, it seems that his main motivating factor is hatred. On the other, what he's said, written, and produced is pretty much laughable....



One note about the Godmakers film...
When I was on my mission in Wisconsin, my companion and I taught a family that chose to be baptized. Unfortunately, within that first week, the minister from their former church brought them that film to watch.
The husband/father watched it, asked his wife to see it, as well. He was immediately horrified that this was "what was really going on." He asked that we not return to his home ever again....
His wife on the other hand had been studying Christianity for a very long time. She'd read the Bible, prayed about what she learned there, etc. She had a pretty strong testimony of truth, no matter where it is found. When she saw the video, she recogized it for the blatant bovine excrement that it is.

Anyone with a firm testimony of Jesus Christ, with a knowledge of what this church (Mormonism) teaches will agree with her.


Ed Decker needs to pull his head out of his back side and figure out what true Christainity is all about. Would Jesus Christ really approve of the mean-spirited way he's chosen to attack people? Would Jesus Christ ever condone the complete lack of integrity Mr Decker has displayed?...

I'm glad he's no longer a member of this church- I would never want to be associated with such a mean, dishonest, hate-filled person.

Answer 4

Ed Decker was angry with God when his son was born with a heart defect. He had numerous extra-marital affairs and was eventually excommunicated for adultery. He became angry with the church and dedicated his life to fighting it.

If you read or view anything produced by him, you will know that he has defiled, perverted, and twisted every doctrine and everything sacred to the LDS church. He has even been criticized by other anti-mormon activists for being overly sensational and simply not honest.

In my book, he is purely anti-mormon and not worth listening too.

Here is a link with some background on him:

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/deck...

Answer 5

4. Completely stupid and not worth listening to.

I have to choose this one, considering the fact that other published Anti-Mormons have even stated that his writings grossly misrepresent Mormonism. If one Anti-Mormon criticizes the work of another Anti-Mormon, that should tell you something.

By the way, you have to read this paragraph linked below, on the criticism of Ed Decker... it's hilarious!

Answer 6

I wouldn't call him an anti-Mormon since I haven't heard him say anything about Mormon people. (Would you call someone an anti-Semite for saying the Tanakh is a pile of crap or that Judaism is a cult?)

His claims are rather fanciful though (to say the least)! I've actually had some people become disappointed when they found out that his films are exaggerations. This one guy told me "Aw man, Mormonism was lookin pretty cool: Like Islam with all the sex in heaven you want but without having to blow yourself up in order to get it."

Answer 7

I think Decker is a bit out there. I reject the concept of "anti-Mormon" unless you mean someone who is persecuting a group for irrational reasons. I believe Decker is doing what he is doing based upon his belief in the problems of the LDS belief.

That being said, I think he is sort of the worst kind of apologist and there are better resources out there to consult and debate about.

Ath

Answer 8

I saw his godmakers film and he and his companion rant on how the mormon church is a satanic cult and and must be stopped at all cost. Ridiculous and false information about the church from this video is generally accepted as true to anti-mormons. Being in-between means I have to study both sides and this video is one of the most ludicrous and most unreliable sources there is.

Answer 9

4 definitely

I'm not sure if he intentionally lies, or is simply misinformed, but in either case he isn't credible. The Tanners to their credibility denounced him. The Tanners may at times be overly biased (Just like Mormon apologists), but at least they're way more level headed than Ed.

Answer 10

I'll go with 4 -- I simply ignore his ilk -- have dealt with too many of them. It's not worth having the contention in my life -- Decker & co leave a nasty impression on my spirit like unto a bitter taste in my mouth [or fingernails on a chalkboard]. It's not worth being around, listening to, etc