Why People Dislike Mormons

[_Bond James Bond]

And did you decribe your post as a hyperbole? No.

Do you have to have everything spelled out for you?

Mormonism creates its own culture from its teachings. And yes, their behavior and good two shoes attitude will create punch lines. This is because Mormons are different and have different values from many in the mainstream. Nothing wrong with that. How should Mormons get more converts? By acting more like the society around them and have the same values as the society they see around them. That is your opinion, right?

Yes if Mormonism wants more converts they're going to have to change some of its more extreme doctrine.

So, for you, Mormons should not just be in the world but act like the world. They should no longer be an example but a part of the norm.

They can do whatever they want, but they can also expect to be disliked in certain circles of mainstream culture for their doctrine.

What would the apostle Paul say to such a line?

What would Paul say? Your appeal to Paul is predicated on the idea I care what Paul says about anything.

[_Kevin Graham]

He did say it was based on the assumption the church is true. The apologists believes the church is true so there can be no legitimate reason to leave.

Exactly, and since Dan peterson believes the Church is true, he doesn't believe there can be legitimate reasons for leaving it. Nothing. No matter how badly one is hurt by the Church. You could come home to find that your Bishop and Stake President are gang-banging your wife and Dan would not support your decisiion to leave the Church because, well, those are just fallible men who are not representative of the Church.

What was interesting is there seemed to be a separation of why one leaved the church and why one stopped believing. It's really about why we stopped believing, not why we may choose to stop going to church. I stopped believing due to intellectual reasons, but why I may leave church can certainly depend on other factors as well.

Good point. Most Mormons on the membership list aren't active, and a great number of those who do attend Church, don't really believe in it anyway. They attend for social benefits.

[_RockSlider]

To understand a high density Mormon community, one needs to look at the sheer numbers. Let's look at Heber Utah for an example.

Stakes: 3
Wards 36 (assuming 12 per stake)
Square miles: 566
Wards per square mile: 15
Chapels per square mile: 4 (assuming 4 wards per building)
Population 10000

The people you associate with the most are those in your ward boundary, when ward boundaries change (Heber experienced 40% growth in the last 10 years), a previous ward member right across the street, whom you associated with several times a week, for years, becomes all but a stranger when a boundary change hits the street between you. Mormon ward families are very busy and very consumptive of your time. It's not out of spite that these old acquaintances are lost, simply out of not enough hours in the day.

[_Doctor Scratch]

But I have to be honest with the evidence, and the evidence suggests overwhelmingly, at least to me, that Dan Peterson despises anyone who challenges him in public. Think about it. Who on these forums, who has challenged him, can seriously be called a friend of Dan Peterson?

Not because you are an "apostate" (I hate that word too). I know that Dan and others have some very cordial meaningful relationships with LDS critics.

None of whom are challenging his arguments publicly. Hence, my point.

You know, Kevin, I never really noticed this, but I think you're right. Who, again, are the critics that he mentions in the usual list he rattles off when he wants to "prove" that he's capable of getting along with critics? One of them is Dan Vogel, but per your hypothesis here, I don't think I've ever seen Vogel directly challenge DCP in any way. Vogel is polite almost to a fault. If there is an instance of him challenging DCP or the other apologists in a firm and direct way, I'm unaware of it.

[_sock puppet]

I get that this happens all to often. And who is deconstructing HIS experience? Is mine as valid as his? I say mine see elements of what he says. But I do not see it always and I see many who do not fit this characterization.

Hello Mr. Jason,

You know. The more you post the more I like you. I think you're a decent fellow.

V/R
Dr. Cam

Indeed. Keep posting, Jason.

[_selek]

Great link / post, Kevin Graham. I think it hits the nail on the head.

In highschool (80s), we lived in a small town with few Mormons. All of my friends were non LDS. They new I was planning to go on a mission and every single one of them commented, independently of each other, that losing the suit and tie would be a benefit: I should fit in and don't be such a big dork and perhaps people wouldn't be put-off when approached. They didn't get the "elder" thing, either.

Times have changed since then. Being a missionary must be much harder now. Not only do missionaries have to overcome the negativity of the mormon-missionary-salesman-complex, "investigators" with an internet connection and half a brain can easily see that the LDS religion is bogus.

The article mentions service work. On my mission (late 80s), they instituted a service policy where all missionaries were to find and do service work for about 2-4 hours, on P-DAY NO LESS! We spent most our time picking up garbage in local parks. Is this program still in place?

[_selek]

Thanks for posting the article, Kevin.

There is lots of food for thought there, as in your comments (and Bond's rant).

It reminds me of a personal story that I have shared with very few people over the years, and certainly not with the people involved.

My best friend in high school was Mormon and baptized me shortly after I graduated. He had activities over at his house every Friday night to which a group of friends had an open invitation, and we had lots of fun. No opening prayers. No scripture chase. Nothing remotely "Mormon" about the activities. Some who attended were Mormon, most were not.

I have to say that my friend came to know me in 9th grade and we were friends for almost four years before I was baptized. He would try to bring up the church every now and then, but I would shoot him down, often in ways that I now realize must have been upsetting to him.

It was only at the end of my senior year that I suddenly took an intense interest in Mormonism, had the missionary discussions and was baptized.

About a month later, I was at a Pioneer Day camping activity, and my friend was there in a crowd of other Mormon youth, including me now.

My friend was talking with everybody about the plans he had to baptize another guy who was in the Friday night gatherings.

It sounded rather bloodless, to me.


But the overwhelming feeling I had, and that I remember to this day, was that I was just a project; that my friend had been working to baptize me the way he was working to baptize this other guy.

I wasn't sure if I felt used, or jealous.

But I also reflected that it really didn't seem that many people would be baptized unless somebody worked on teaching them, and actually tried to get them to join.

I am ambivalent about the whole process, but it does leave a bad taste in my mouth, and so I can more than understand how non-members would feel the same way.

I have found in the last several years that, when I am not gaming non-members to join the church, I am much more open and able to share my feelings about the gospel with them. I just tend to do it in a way that is not so dogmatic or preachy.

I also seem to find time to listen to their views; and without feeling the need to correct them.


All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Interesting perspective. Did you remain friends after you were baptized? If not, did it have anything to do with what you describe as being "used"?

[_Themis]

Look hard, because you are fooling yourself if you think you are motivated ONLY by your intellectual honesty, or inversely, your righteousness and saintly faith.

We need to be careful here. Although many leave for many different reasons, most not even for intellectual reasons, many do stop believing for solely intellectual reasons. We all have our weaknesses, but for many it's all about the intellectual. If not for it they would not even consider leaving. Of course though, are we talking about leaving church or about no longer believing the church is true. Many first stop believing for intellectual reasons solely. They may then choose later to leave church that include other reasons.

[_Themis]

Times have changed since then. Being a missionary must be much harder now. Not only do missionaries have to overcome the negativity of the mormon-missionary-salesman-complex, "investigators" with an internet connection and half a brain can easily see that the LDS religion is bogus.

To true. I have noticed that baptisms have dried up in western nations. I think this is very much due to the internet, which is why the church has been more concerned about members getting involved online to share the gospel. The problem here is that apologetics is geared to member, not the investigator. It is easy for the investigator to see from critic sites or apologetic ones that the church is not what is claims to be.

[_why me]

Times have changed since then. Being a missionary must be much harder now. Not only do missionaries have to overcome the negativity of the mormon-missionary-salesman-complex, "investigators" with an internet connection and half a brain can easily see that the LDS religion is bogus.

I must admit that the internet does do harm to the LDS church. The antimormon critics can use hypos and heresays and give a pretty skewed interpretation of an event. And this does have an influence. However, I don't think that the internet is the main culprit. The main culprit is secular humanism which has taken over much of the mindset these days. Western centered people have a difficult time joining any church and this is why christianity is in decline in the west.