DiscussMormonism.com

Not long ago I was reading an article that said Republicans tend to fall into 3 camps regarding Donald Trump: 1) Supporters, 2) Never Trumpers, and 3) "Balls and Strikes" Republicans. The third kind is Republicans who judge Trump on his individual decisions or actions, thus approving of some things and disapproving of others.

This got me thinking of where I am regarding the LDS church. I don't think I was ever reflexively opposed to everything the church does or says, but I've been accused of being so. I've always tried to judge based on what I think is right: thus, I approve of the church's efforts to help clean up and rebuild after the hurricanes, but I heartily disagree with the policy toward the children of gay people.

What has changed is my level of interest. I really don't think much about the church anymore. Sure, it comes up occasionally, such as when some missionaries came by to tell me they knew I would come back to church if I could feel worthy again. But in my everyday life, it's just not there anymore, and I don't care much about it.

I suppose where I draw the line is either when the church does something egregiously harmful, or when someone I know is suffering because of their interaction with the church. Often, these two overlap (see the policy toward gay families).

So, I don't consider myself an anti-Mormon because that would suggest I had some kind of animus or negative agenda toward the church, and honestly, I just don't give much of a crap anymore. Droopy's apoplectic response to consig reminded me that some people consider me an anti-Mormon, maybe even "the worst kind of anti-Mormon," as someone once said of me.

But I'm not trying to make this about me, but rather about how overused the term "anti-Mormon" is. I've heard that label applied to everyone from rabid haters like Robert Jeffress to benign scholars like Chris Smith. At some point, when you call everyone who ever dares to disagree with the church an anti-Mormon, the term loses its descriptive capacity because it could literally mean anyone who isn't rigidly on board with the church's every position.

And that brings me back to what I said at the beginning: Being pro- or anti-Mormon requires an emotional or psychological investment that I suspect a lot of us here on this board just don't have anymore.

I like the balls and strikes metaphor. Joseph missed the corner on the temple in Zion/Independence, but he threw one right down the middle on the Northern states vs. the Southern states.

deacon blues wrote:I like the balls and strikes metaphor. Joseph missed the corner on the temple in Zion/Independence, but he threw one right down the middle on the Northern states vs. the Southern states.

Yep, a lot of people said pretty much the same thing during the Nullification Crisis. Either way, that's what I mean: accept that sometimes the church gets things right. I guess I was thinking more in terms of how the church impacts its members and the world at large. I see lots of balls and strikes.

I think the "anti-mormon" term is synonymous with mere disagreement for a lot of members and apologists, especially on the other board. Robert Smith and Scott Lloyd seem to be neck and neck in the running for Chairman of the "Anti-mormon" name calling committee. They don't get the idea that the church is to blame for creating the "anti-mormons" in the first place. Missionaries are sent out to preach this nonsense to the world and members are infused with the missionary zeal for their "lost" family members. People, however, get tired of hearing about it. It's nonsense. Stop with the missionary effort and my guess is the so-called "anti-mormons" will go away too.

I've found it's easiest to ignore the term anti-Mormon. When I hear it used these days its usually somebody applying it so freely it means nothing or is used to attack another person, as if doing so somehow addresses the points raised and discussed. it's certainly become a useless term.

Stem wrote:I've found it's easiest to ignore the term anti-Mormon. When I hear it used these days its usually somebody applying it so freely it means nothing or is used to attack another person, as if doing so somehow addresses the points raised and discussed. it's certainly become a useless term.

Oh Lawd! Hey, buddy!*

:-D

*Hoping she's greeting the same buddy.

Jersey Girl wrote:

Stem wrote:I've found it's easiest to ignore the term anti-Mormon. When I hear it used these days its usually somebody applying it so freely it means nothing or is used to attack another person, as if doing so somehow addresses the points raised and discussed. it's certainly become a useless term.

Oh Lawd! Hey, buddy!*

:-D

*Hoping she's greeting the same buddy.

You got me. Thanks for saying hi. I really miss some of you fine folks and couldn't stay away.
How is it?

Stem wrote: You got me. Thanks for saying hi. I really miss some of you fine folks and couldn't stay away.
How is it?

Sit. Stay. Good boy!!!

Jersey Girl wrote:

Stem wrote: You got me. Thanks for saying hi. I really miss some of you fine folks and couldn't stay away.
How is it?

Sit. Stay. Good boy!!!

Agreed! Hugs to Stem!

Stem wrote:I've found it's easiest to ignore the term anti-Mormon. When I hear it used these days its usually somebody applying it so freely it means nothing or is used to attack another person, as if doing so somehow addresses the points raised and discussed. it's certainly become a useless term.

Great summary of the phenomenon surrounding the term.

When I went to my bishop on 2012 to talk through my concerns about history/polygamy he kind of scoffed and asked me, "Is this your first encounter with anti-Mormon literature?" The thing is, I was reading In Sacred Loneliness and Rough Stone Rolling and had already described them to him. I kind of didn't know what to say after he said that. The discussion was just over.

How do you have a discussion with someone so insulated from inquiry? I sure couldn't.

But it is interesting how effective the term "Anti-Mormon" is at erecting a wall in some people's minds. I guess I was too rationally arrogant for that to work for me. I assumed nothing could ever pose a serious threat to my beliefs because they were true, dammit!