DiscussMormonism.com

Droopy:

Just shy of two weeks ago, we had a bit of a discussion on your use of the term "anti-Mormon." You seem to apply the term quite frequently in your posts, either to other posters, or to arguments, books, organizations, etc. You've also made several accusations to the effect that I myself meet your definition of the word "anti-Mormon."

As my study of Mormonism has marched on over the past thirteen years, I've come to have less and less respect for the term "anti-Mormon" and for those who use it. Certain self-styled defenders of Mormonism seem to fling the term around in much the same careless manner as those who attack Mormonism fling around the word "cult." I gave some brief, acerbic thoughts on the matter in the Infrequently Asked Questions section of one of my blogs:

Bridget Jack Jeffries wrote:Is Mormonism a cult?

No. Only stupid people think this.

Are you an anti-Mormon? Is this site anti-Mormon?

No. Only stupid people think this.

If you want a more serious response to those last two questions, in the context of discussions on Mormonism, I think the words “cult” and “anti-Mormon” are two sides of the same coin. Each term has a legitimate and proper meaning that (once upon a time) could have been used to facilitate meaningful discussion. Unfortunately, in practice, these terms have been excessively abused by the respective sides in the debate so that they have been diminished to little more than pejorative, thought-stopping rhetoric. These terms generally poison the well and move to circumvent thoughtful exploration of the subject under discussion, and it seems that it’s the less-capable counter-cultists, LDS critics, and Mormon apologists who thrive on a liberal application of said terms.

Some people have called me a critic of the LDS church, but I disagree. I prefer to think of myself as a critic of sexism & patriarchy, invasive policies, destructive cultural practices, and bad apologetics. In as much as the church officially sanctions those things, yes, I am a critic of the church. But by those same tokens I’m also a critic of my own religion.

I also touched on the subject in an article that I wrote on Mormon-Evangelical interfaith dialogue for the Mormonism portal of Patheos last year:

Bridget Jack Jeffries wrote:I believe that the trends I have witnessed in Mormon-Evangelical dialogue in the past twelve years have largely been positive ones. I'm not certain where we will be in another twelve years, other than feeling pretty confident that mutual dialogue trends are bound to continue. However, here are three things I would like to see:

1) The grace to critique one another's mutually exclusive truth claims free from the stigma of attack/victim accusations. For example, Mormons believe in a Great Apostasy while evangelicals believe Christ's Church has always been on the earth. In defending their own truth claims, Latter-day Saints are naturally going to criticize the idea that Christ's Church has always been present, while evangelicals are going to criticize the idea that there was a complete and total apostasy. For one group to play the victim card and stigmatize the other as attackers for challenging such beliefs is a sure way to preclude genuine, mutual interfaith dialogue. We cannot make the forfeit of distinctive religious beliefs a prerequisite to respectful, genuine dialogue, as such a dialogue could never be "genuine."

2) The death of the terms "anti-Mormon" and "cult." Once upon a time, these words had an actual, technical meaning that could have been useful for the purposes of religious discussion. Now, they've been misapplied and abused by certain parties on either side to the extent that they currently amount to little more than thought-stopping rhetoric, nearly useless for interfaith dialogue. It's time to retire them.

So, that should be enough to clarify my own position on the matter.

Thirteen days ago, in an attempt to demonstrate that I really am, in spite of my claims to the contrary, an "anti-Mormon," you asked me four questions:

Droopy wrote:I'd also like to hear your pro-LDS views on the following core subjects:

1.The First Vision.

2.The literal visit of Moroni to Joseph Smith and the physical reality of the gold plates.

3.The personal visitation to Joseph Smith and others of physical, resurrected beings, such as Moses, Abraham, Noah, Enoch, Peter, James, and John etc., to restore keys and ordinances.

4.The doctrine of preexistence.

This would suffice for a small initial exploration.

I'm not sure why you would assume that a non-Mormon would have "pro-LDS" views on these subjects, but I went ahead and gave what I thought were very fair and generous answers for someone who rejects the LDS worldview. You essentially responded that all four of my answers were "anti-Mormon," if for no other reason than that they deny Mormonism's truth claims. For example, in response to one of my answers, you said:

Droopy wrote:I would have to term this "anti-Mormon" in the sense that it directly confronts and denies core elements of what LDS understand to be the historic events leading to the restoration of the gospel.

And later in the same post, you also stated:

Droopy wrote:You are not "anti-Mormon," and yet hold views that would, if accepted, unravel the entire body of core truth claims upon which the Church is erected.

Thereby implying that anyone who holds views which, if accepted, would "unravel the entire body of core truth claims upon which the church is erected" is an anti-Mormon.

I've heard some preposterously vague and liberal definitions of the term "anti-Mormon" before, but yours strikes me as the most problematic yet. You seem to be saying that anyone who merely disbelieves in the truth claims of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an "anti-Mormon"---which means that there are no fewer than 6.9 BILLION anti-Mormons in the world today. If this reasoning is taken to its full extent, you are also saying that mere disbelief in someone's religion makes one "anti" that religion, so you yourself must be an anti-Protestant, anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu, etc.

The purpose of this thread is to give you the opportunity to clarify your definition of the term "anti-Mormon" versus your understanding of the term "non-Mormon." I attempted to get you to clarify on this matter on the former thread, but you never answered my questions. So, let's try again.

1. What is an "anti-Mormon"? What is a "non-Mormon"? Do you believe in any potential distinctions between the two? If so, what are they?

2. What answers could a "non-Mormon" give to the four questions you asked me (cited above) and not be considered an "anti-Mormon" by you?

3. Would you say that you are any of the following: anti-Protestant, anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu, anti-FLDS, etc.? Why or why not?

4. Ronald Reagan was baptized into the Disciples of Christ as a young man and attended a Presbyterian church later in life. However, he was apparently quite familiar with the LDS church and had a high degree of admiration for it, deliberately employing more Mormons in his administration than any other President in U. S. history. In the wake of Reagan's passing in 2004, his Special Assistant Stephen M. Studdert recalled:

Stephen M. Studdert wrote:President Reagan knew and loved the Latter-day Saints, and held the Church in highest regard.

From his days as governor of California, the doctrines and the principles of the Church drew his frequent interest. As president he often asked about Church programs . . .

His relationship with God was personal and deep. He loved America, and often spoke of its divine purposes and the inspired origins of its Constitution. At one meeting when visiting Church headquarters, he tenderly shared those sentiments with Church leaders . . .

In a non-partisan manner, leaders of the Church were his welcome guests. Church Presidents Spencer W. Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson and Gordon B. Hinckley were each warmly received into the Oval Office with respect and friendship.

Ronald Reagan truly admired the Latter-day Saints. His administration included more members of the Church than any other American president, ever.

Three of us, David Fischer, Gregory Newell and I, served on his personal White House staff. Richard Wirthlin was his chief strategist. Ted Bell served as Secretary of Education, Angela Buchanan was Treasurer, Rex Lee was Solicitor General. His White House included Roger Porter, Brent Scowcroft, Richard Beal, Blake Parish, Jon Huntsman Jr., Dodie Borup and Rocky Kuonen, and there were many other Latter-day Saints throughout his Administration. President Thomas S. Monson served on a Presidential Commission on Volunteerism. Others were ambassadors. LDS senators and representatives were held in special regard, and the Tabernacle Choir was his special inaugural guest.

Studdert testifies that Reagan was familiar with "the doctrines and principles of the Church." Given the fact that Reagan was deeply passionate about God, and yet never joined the LDS church, it seems highly probable that he must have rejected at least some of the core truth claims on which the LDS church was erected.

Do you believe the late President Ronald Reagan was an "anti-Mormon"? Why or why not?

Thank you in advance for your time.

Oh no. MsJack thinks men and women should be allowed equal opportunity to take on roles in society as their desires and talents allow. This can only mean one thing. She snorts heroin off of strippers bodies at communist orgies while she plots how to poison Christians' drinking water.

Hey Droopy, I'm genuinely interested in seeing you respond to Jack's OP.

In my experience, "anti-Mormon" gets defined in two, mutually incompatible ways.

The first is to describe anyone who vocally opposes LDS theology or Church actions as behaving in an anti-Mormon fashion.

The second is to describe anyone who opposes Mormons in a hateful or bigoted or disingenuous way as anti-Mormon.

The former is comparable to "critic" and the latter is comparable to what antisemitism is to Jews.

But here's the trick. I've seen several posters attempt to describe anyone who meets the former as anti-Mormon while talking about anti-Mormonism in terms of the later. It's an equivocation meant to paint anyone who would openly disagree with Mormondom as a bigot. Pahoran is the poster-boy for doing that.

MsJack wrote:Just shy of two weeks ago, we had a bit of a discussion on your use of the term "anti-Mormon." You seem to apply the term quite frequently in your posts, either to other posters, or to arguments, books, organizations, etc. You've also made several accusations to the effect that I myself meet your definition of the word "anti-Mormon."

As my study of Mormonism has marched on over the past thirteen years, I've come to have less and less respect for the term "anti-Mormon" and for those who use it.

You aren't particularly fond of the term "anti-Mormon" -- and I respect that and even understand where you're coming from.

I don't like the term "mopologist," so you at least understand why, from an intellectual standpoint, this comes across (to me, at least) as a schoolyard "neener neener" insult? Especially when its used by obviously intelligent and educated people here (yourself, Blixa, Kishkumen, DrW).

So, what I am saying is that there are emotionally charged terms on both sides that, if respectful dialogue is to happen, we must limit their use.

Anyway, don't want to stray too far from the topic at hand.

Okay, Mopologist is out.

How about Mopolo-bot instead?

Is Mormonism a cult?

No. Only stupid people think this.

Really? I think this is a bit too strong. (For example, whatever else you think of Steve Benson, he is not exactly stupid or uninformed about Mormonism).

I personally don't find it useful to call Mormonism a cult. It offends people I care about and it just doesn't move the discussion along in most cases.

But it isn't exactly "stupid".

I remember when I first went through the temple in about 1976 (it was different than now) having been raised in an extremely active LDS family, I came out of it with the horrible sinking feeling that I was in a cult. I don't think this was because I was stupid. I think my reasons were pretty sensible.

As I learned more about and thought more about the early church, I also had a definite urge -internally at least -to describe it (the early church ) as a cult.

Of course there is no list of necessary and sufficient conditions we can consult to decide if an organization is a cult or not but if I try to imagine such an attempt at a list I am quite sure that there would be quite a few things on the list that would fit really really well with the church in both it's early stages and later stages as well (but maybe for different reasons).

Even though there are no clear necessary and sufficient conditions that define "cult", the term does have some practical significance in our society. I wonder, do you think that Scientology is a cult? Is it just plain stupid to think so?

Tarski wrote:

Is Mormonism a cult?

No. Only stupid people think this.

Really? I think this is a bit too strong. (For example, whatever else you think of Steve Benson, he is not exactly stupid or uninformed about Mormonism).

I personally don't find it useful to call Mormonism a cult. It offends people I care about and it just doesn't move the discussion along in most cases.

But it isn't exactly "stupid".

I remember when I first went through the temple in about 1976 (it was different than now) having been raised in an extremely active LDS family, I came out of it with the horrible sinking feeling that I was in a cult. I don't think this was because I was stupid. I think my reasons were pretty sensible.

As I learned more about and thought more about the early church, I also had a definite urge -internally at least -to describe it (the early church ) as a cult.

Of course there is no list of necessary and sufficient conditions we can consult to decide if an organization is a cult or not but if I try to imagine such an attempt at a list I am quite sure that there would be quite a few things on the list that would fit really really well with the church in both it's early stages and later stages as well (but maybe for different reasons).

Even though there are no clear necessary and sufficient conditions that define "cult", the term does have some practical significance in our society. I wonder, do you think that Scientology is a cult? Is it just plain stupid to think so?

Call me a dummy then. I of late have come to the conclusion that the LDS Church IS a cult of FOLLOW THE PROPHET and contains the trappings of cult-think to that end. It services nothing other than the prosperous advancement of the power of FOLLOW THE PROPHET. The pretense to the gospel of Jesus Christ is so much banta fodder to nurture the object of the cult's one true purpose. Ah, mm, does this make me an anti-mormon? Naw. I am the ONLY Mormon. To survive in infestation of the tares. How can I be anti to myself?

Corpsegrinder wrote:Okay, Mopologist is out.

How about Mopolo-bot instead?

Mopoliphobia - an inexplicable fear of the words Mopologist, Mopologia, Mopologetics.

In answer to the OP (as I don't think Droopy is ever going to), here is my take:

Anti-Mormon = someone who is pro-actively fighting against the Mormon Church and it's beliefs.
I'm talking about people who are actively trying to deconvert Mormons or actively trying to prevent people from joining the Mormon religion, rather than people discussing Mormonism.
Included would be people who produce and publish material that is deliberate in it's intent to dissuade people from Mormonism.

Non-Mormon = everyone who; a. isn't baptised Mormon and b. Doesn't attend Sacrament meeting at least once in a 12 month period.

Droopy ~ I, too, am curious as to how it is that you found time yesterday to reply to this thread six times, but never even attempted to address the plain questions I posed in my OP. They don't strike me as the kind of questions that would require special research or anything.

I'm still waiting for your answers. Here they are again:

1. What is an "anti-Mormon"? What is a "non-Mormon"? Do you believe in any potential distinctions between the two? If so, what are they?

2. What answers could a "non-Mormon" give to the four questions you asked me (cited above) and not be considered an "anti-Mormon" by you?

3. Would you say that you are any of the following: anti-Protestant, anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu, anti-FLDS, etc.? Why or why not?

4. Ronald Reagan was baptized into the Disciples of Christ as a young man and attended a Presbyterian church later in life. However, he was apparently quite familiar with the LDS church and had a high degree of admiration for it, deliberately employing more Mormons in his administration than any other President in U. S. history. In the wake of Reagan's passing in 2004, his Special Assistant Stephen M. Studdert recalled:

Stephen M. Studdert wrote:President Reagan knew and loved the Latter-day Saints, and held the Church in highest regard.

From his days as governor of California, the doctrines and the principles of the Church drew his frequent interest. As president he often asked about Church programs . . .

His relationship with God was personal and deep. He loved America, and often spoke of its divine purposes and the inspired origins of its Constitution. At one meeting when visiting Church headquarters, he tenderly shared those sentiments with Church leaders . . .

In a non-partisan manner, leaders of the Church were his welcome guests. Church Presidents Spencer W. Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson and Gordon B. Hinckley were each warmly received into the Oval Office with respect and friendship.

Ronald Reagan truly admired the Latter-day Saints. His administration included more members of the Church than any other American president, ever.

Three of us, David Fischer, Gregory Newell and I, served on his personal White House staff. Richard Wirthlin was his chief strategist. Ted Bell served as Secretary of Education, Angela Buchanan was Treasurer, Rex Lee was Solicitor General. His White House included Roger Porter, Brent Scowcroft, Richard Beal, Blake Parish, Jon Huntsman Jr., Dodie Borup and Rocky Kuonen, and there were many other Latter-day Saints throughout his Administration. President Thomas S. Monson served on a Presidential Commission on Volunteerism. Others were ambassadors. LDS senators and representatives were held in special regard, and the Tabernacle Choir was his special inaugural guest.

Studdert testifies that Reagan was familiar with "the doctrines and principles of the Church." Given the fact that Reagan was deeply passionate about God, and yet never joined the LDS church, it seems highly probable that he must have rejected at least some of the core truth claims on which the LDS church was erected.

Do you believe the late President Ronald Reagan was an "anti-Mormon"? Why or why not?

Replying to some of the other things you've said in this thread. You said:

Droopy wrote:it would seem, and just being in a forum such as this - a notorious anti-Mormon forum - would be indicative of essentially a core hostility - not just differing view - but core hostility to the Church's teachings (like, for example, you, Johnnie) and a desire to express it.

We've already covered this elsewhere. I'm here far less than you yourself have been and any number of LDS apologists who participate here, so if mere participation on this forum is indicative of anti-Mormonism, folks like you, Dan Peterson, and bcspace are much more "anti-Mormons" than I am.

Droopy wrote:Jack's witch hunt against Will Schryver, the fundamental purpose of which, given the timing and background of it, was clearly to achieve what it did achieve regarding publication of his Book of Abraham work, is indicative, not so much of any particular view on any particular doctrine, but of a global "anti" Mormon sentiment and orientation that expressed itself in "anti" form.

This is a misrepresentation of the nature and purpose of my thread about William. I've already corrected similar misrepresentations from you elsewhere and won't repeat myself here.

Also let it be noted: since I passionately believe that William's behavior was not in accordance with the high standards of my husband's church, I consider my thread documenting and complaining about said behavior to be one of the most "pro-Mormon" things I have done all year.

Droopy wrote:Jack's personal philosophy has clear feminist overtones and orientation, as her bizarre "misogyny" claims regarding Will, as well as other of her own posts here, suggest.

Right. Because only a flaming feminist would dare to complain when a man calls famous female religious leaders things like "champion bitch."

Droopy wrote:She has also self identified as a theological "egalitarian" which she has yet to clarify

Yes, I am a Christian egalitarian, and here is your clarification:

I believe that both men and women were created in the imago Dei, that both sexes were intended to have "dominion" (authority) over the earth, and that God's original design for the sexes did not include the subordination of one sex to the other. In marriage, I believe that authority is shared between husband and wife and submission is mutual, that husband and wife should decide how to run their family based on their talents, needs, and interests. In the church, I believe that all roles are open to both men and women in accordance with the gifting and calling of the Spirit, including leadership roles such as the offices of pastor, elder, and deacon. Most of all, I believe that any system which necessarily subordinates women to men regardless of circumstances or restricts a woman's ability to serve within the body of Christ or teaches women that their worth lies primarily in their ability to produce children does violence to God's plans for women and his original design for the sexes.

I believe that the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ was the most powerful being in the universe, and that he emptied himself, gave it all up, and made himself lower than the lowest people in existence so that he could exalt the weak and downtrodden and share that former glory with others, making himself "the firstborn among many brothers and sisters" (Romans 8:29). Jesus showed that the only power and authority worth having is the kind that you voluntarily give away in order to effect the transformation of others.

That is Christian egalitarianism. It has nothing to do with socialism or my desired system of civic government.

EAllusion wrote:In my experience, "anti-Mormon" gets defined in two, mutually incompatible ways.

The first is to describe anyone who vocally opposes LDS theology or Church actions as behaving in an anti-Mormon fashion.

The second is to describe anyone who opposes Mormons in a hateful or bigoted or disingenuous way as anti-Mormon.

The former is comparable to "critic" and the latter is comparable to what antisemitism is to Jews.

But here's the trick. I've seen several posters attempt to describe anyone who meets the former as anti-Mormon while talking about anti-Mormonism in terms of the later. It's an equivocation meant to paint anyone who would openly disagree with Mormondom as a bigot. Pahoran is the poster-boy for doing that.

Good analysis, EA.

Simon Belmont wrote:I don't like the term "mopologist," so you at least understand why, from an intellectual standpoint, this comes across (to me, at least) as a schoolyard "neener neener" insult? Especially when its used by obviously intelligent and educated people here (yourself, Blixa, Kishkumen, DrW).

I'm pretty sure that I could count the number of times that I have used the term "Mopologetics" or "Mopologist" in public discourse on one hand. When I learned that other people see it as an offensive and derogatory term, I made the decision to err on the side of caution and refrain from using it.

I thought that I already gave a nod to emotionally-charged terminology employed by the other side with the word "cult."

Tarski ~ You raise a good objection, but I've gotta run. I'll get back to you later tonight.