Craig C. redefines "anti-Mormon"
Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 5:15 pm
This post was originally posted on the RFM board, dated 4-29-08. I think it deserves to be brought to this board for discussion for because as he does so often, Craig C. intellectually nails it. For those of you who have accused others of being "anti-Mormon" and for those who have been the recipient of this label. No further introduction is needed here. I'll let this stand on it's own, because it does.
"The term anti Mormon"
How many times have we heard the terms "Anti-Mormon" or "Pro-Mormon" on this or other web sites?
Some who consider themselves "pro-Mormon" (perhaps even some leaders of the Church) believe that Mormon myths must be preserved at all cost. They reason that even if the myth is false, it nevertheless provides the moral and economic foundation for Mormon society. The myth is needed for social cohesion.
Of course, underlying this argument is a profound lack of confidence in the people - it basically assumes that in the absence of myth, civil society will collapse into a vacuum of dog-eat-dog selfishness and despair.
Perpetuating the myth can thus be justified as a morally correct act. And those who reject the myth become a threat. They must be labeled as "Anti-Mormons", so that members know to avoid them, or at least to close their ears to them.
But who is the real "Anti-Mormon"? Is it the myth maker who has found ways to justify a perpetuation of lies? Or is it the myth breaker who has confidence in the inherent capacity of the people to make good decisions without a myth?
There is another way to think about this.
Who do we consider to be our "friends"? Most of us would answer that question with a list of attributes that define friendship. One attribute that would likely appear on the list is the idea that a real friend does not deceive us.
I refuse to be labeled Anti-Mormon. I am Pro-Mormon. Those who would deceive my Mormon loved ones and associates are the Anti's.