Why People Dislike Mormons

[_sock puppet]

I must admit that the internet does do harm to the LDS church.

Agreed, but for different reasons. The internet makes the truth about Mormon history available through a couple of Google searches. It's a deal killer for those that are seeking truth.

[_Kevin Graham]

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.

Dan Vogel wrote a book with Metcalfe that directly challenged Dan Peterson's arguments. I can't remember the name right now, but I can get it if you want. I think my point is on solid ground. Dan doesn't get along with anyone who dares challenge his authority or does anything to undermine his Rock Star status.

[_Dan Vogel]

Dr. Scratch,

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.

DCP and I go way back. I first became aware of him when he responded to my paper “Mormonism’s ‘Anti-Masonick Bible’” at Sunstone in 1989 at the University of Utah. He has also published critiques of that paper and other things I have written. We also debated about my biography on TV in Salt Lake City in 2004. I’ve visited with him at MHA meetings, and stopped by FAIR for the last several years and to say hello to him and the other apologists I know. I disagree with him about some things dealing with early Mormon history, but I respect him.

Dan and I have crossed swords a few times. Most recently, I took issue with his mischaracterization of my position on the eight witnesses. But these exchanges are rare and brief, I think, largely due to Dan’s style of internet debate. He seems to gravitate towards repartee with easier targets, where his wit can be used to knock down assumptions and stereotypes about Mormons. He’s not one to get into a lengthy and detailed debate. He’s more of an ambassador of Mormon intellectualism, usually appearing here to promote some publication. There have been occasions where I tried to confront Dan, but it quickly got derailed by my fellow critics who would rather attack him personally and I have no interest in that.

[_Jason Bourne]

So what you're saying is you think the majority of Mormons, in some way, manage to set aside their knowledge that being a missionary towards non-members is a commandment, and that in so doing, they will receive blessings in this life and in the next?

I understand that Mormonism emphasizes obedience and blessings. But I do not think that this is foremost in every members mind for every move they make, every friend they take, every service endeavor the complete. It is in the undertone? Sure. More for some than others? I imagine. But I think many LDS member are mature enough to not make this the focus of everything they do. Again from my own vantage point I as a TBM I made plenty fo non LDS friends. Did I want to share the LDS gospel with them. Yes if I had the chance. Was it on my mind on a regular prevailing basis? Hardly.

As for service, well next weekend I will be spending a Saturday and Sunday as part of a work team going to areas flooded by the past hurricane and follow up tropical storm. About 10 men from my ward are going. I don't think any of them are sitting there gloating about adding to their blessings bank account. Rather I think they genuinely want to go help those in need.

And yes I imagine we will be asked to wear the stupid shirts. I would like to ditch those.

If someone tells you he plays the lottery because he wants to help the local gas stations with their business, and not because he hopes to receive a reward, would you believe him? If I get paid money for helping someone with build their house, in what sense can this be said to be true, selfless charity? You can say, well I don't care if I get paid, I'm going to help him because I'm a charitable kinda guy. But this begs the question. How can one ignore the compensation one anticipates from said action?

Ultimately all of us have some sort of self interest that motivates us. The idea os obedience to God, serving our fellow men, etc is entrenched in the ideals of Christianity, not just the LDS Church. But everyone is motivated out of something that is partly in self interest. Even if nothing else from the good feeling that comes from doing something nice for someone else.

And more importantly why do their attitudes drastically change when it comes to apostates? I can tell you that I know for a fact that this is true, whether it be in Brazil, California, Madrid, Orlando or Atlanta. Once the local Mormons find out you're a former member, their attitudes change drastically. You can be a never-Mo because most people are. But an Ex-Mo? Forget about it. They'll avoid you like the plague. Now this proves to me that I am right about this. You think I am describing a fanatical fringe within the Church, but in my experience the opposite is true.

I believe I already agreed that often those departing the fold are marginalized and I think they are because members cannot imagine why someone would honestly leave the one true church. It threatens their own testimony to accept that someone may have left for reasonable issues.

And when I was a TBM and single, I attended the Singles Ward in Atlanta. I can tell you that the few guys who were exed and rebaptized, were avoided at all costs. They still came to church and sat in the back pews all the time. Most of them were exed for having sex with their girlfriends. And whenever an unsuspecting female who was new to the ward thought about dating one of them, the faithful guys would pull her aside and try to dissuade her from doing so. I was involved in this and I saw this throughout my 10+ years of faithful LDS membership. I saw it in the Church on three different continents, so it wasn't like I was trapped within an odd or unique Mormon environment the whole time.

Unfortunately for me I did not really experience much of the singles scene in or out of the Church since I was married to my my wife about 8 months after my mission.

Though I can tell you that whenever the issue of sharing the gospel with friends comes up where I live it is emphasized not to do what you have described. In others words just be friends and stay friends regardless of whether someone is interested or not.

Oh I agree that they'll state in Church talks that they shouldn't be so judgmental, but the fact is most Mormons don't practice this preaching, which is probably why it became a subject to talk about in the first place.

Of course it happens. I never said it did not. In fact I think this is one of the reasons that the Church now focuses less on going out and doing all sorts of activities with someone then popping the question on them. Now it is just look for opportunities any where to share the gospel. May be with someone you are friends with or it may be someone you meet at the bank. Of course making friends and sharing the gospel if it is the right situation is still encouraged.

Are the two mutually exclusive?

Yes I believe so. The Church has always tried to keep members safe and secure in the Mormon social network. Too much socializing with the Gentiles could lead to more problems for the members and for the Church, since the Church thinks it has the responsibility of keeping the members faithful. This is why you can lose your temple recommend for talking to the wrong people, and it is why parents generally do not allow their kids to date Gentiles.

Personally I have never felt any discouragement from having non LDS friends. Not one bit ever.

Sort of like Christian and non Christian? Listen, you need words to describe people. Personally I have never liked gentile. And I prefer non LDS to non member.

Mormonism takes it to another level Jason. I remember in 1997 my girlfriend was getting baptized, and she told me the one thing that annoyed the hell out of her was the way everyone at Church referred to other people as non-Members, and they referred to "The Church" as if it were the only one on the planet that mattered. People visiting Baptist or Catholic Churches are assumed to be Christians of some stripe. People visiting a Mormon Church are not assumed to be Mormon.

Are you sure? I cannot tell you how many EV Christians I have met who asked me whether I was saved or when I got saved. There certainly is a pressure in that group for one to get saved and a major distinction between the saved and unsaved.

Not where I live. My kids dated non members.

Well that's cool. You must not live in Utah.

Correct.

But I know that it is encourages to date members because you marry those you date.

Exactly, which is why the Church advised LDS parents to forbid their kids from dating non-Members.

Yea I said I heard this and heard if often. Kimball said it all the time.

Absolutely NONE of this has conversion as its main motivator.

But it does have obedience as its main motivator. Obedience leads to salvation.

Obedience is an element of all Christian faiths. I was listening to an EV station the other night and this dude was hammering on obedience. I understand the differences though. But honestly if one really believes to obey God is essential than so what? Again, I think more spiritually mature don't think all that much about this as a motivator.

Again by radicals.

Radicals according to whom?

Me. And based on what I heard Peterson discuss on the Mormon Stories Podcast, he feels the same about some. And I understand his predicament in speaking out. And others. Elder Ballard has spoken about how we should interact with others particularly on the internet.

Kevin I like you. But I think the reason is more because you can be very strong and outspoken in your delivery.

Don't think I haven't considered this. I hear it a lot and I take it to heart when folks I respect say it, you included. But if this is really true, then how do you explain the examples I provided? I'm extremely self-critical and I self-reflect all the time. This is why I can change my viewpoints as much as I have. 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?

I have challenged him on a few points and I think he seem friendly towards me. Though I will admit that I do not challenge him often of very rigorously. Are there a few others here? Maybe. I would have to look into this more.

How did they view Don Bradley when he was an atheist and critic?

Not sure,

I am. He was fairly respected.

but others here seem tor ecall the way they fawned over him once he was rebaptized.

Yes that is true as well.

However, this hasn't really changed Schryver's attitude towards him

And he is a loon.

Schryver is a nut job when it comes to his paranoia about fifth columnists and taking it on himself to root out apostates. Even his posting style of tossing out scripture to condemn and pronouncing curses and prophecy of persons apostasy like he is Moses on Mt. Sinai is flat out looney.

More like Porter Rockwell, who is is probably trying to emulate. But you're missing the point that the Mormons disagree with you. At least the ones online. Even those who are disgusted with his antics, refuse to say they are disgusted. They'll just say something like they don't condone it, and then try to paint him as a victim who was pushed to fight back. Why would Pahoran or Robert Crockett or Dan Peterson do this, if Schryver were just a nutjob who wasn't representative of the Church? I think there are a number of apostates who see in Schryver, precisely the kind of hatred and bigotry they experienced from Mormons after they left the faith.

I also do not think the LDS people who post on message boards like this and MDD are very representative of most sitting in the pews.

I disagree and I believe the leaders would condemn their actions.

Oh I am sure they would if they had cameras in their faces. They'd never condone this behavior in public, but the fact is it is their teachings that produce miserable characters like Schryver.

I do not think it would just be in front of the cameras. And the fact that some get extreme like Schryver is not the fault of the teachings of the church. Any religion can be distorted and usually is by some of the adherents.

Not off hand. Under "Apostate" it mentions how most of them leave because they sinned and didn't want to repent. And I have seen several long winded discussions play out over at MAD over the years where the majority of Mormons challenge this notion that people can have legitimate reasons for leaving the faith. Without exception, every Mormon there told stories about how they "know" apostates leave because of reasons that had nothing to do with intellectual honesty. It was always about a desire to drink, or smoke, or covet the neighbor's wife. Even Dan Peterson got in on the action and supported these claims, never once conceding the possibility that people could have legitimate reasons for leaving the faith.

I have seen it writing and even heard Peterson concede that there are those who leave for intellectual or other reasons than sinning.

[_Jason Bourne]

I disagree and I believe the leaders would condemn their actions.

As I said Schryver is a loon.

I disagree with you on this. I think most of the “leaders” are just like Schryver is when it comes to their attitudes about apostates and NOMs.

Really? Oh then. I think you are wrong. Some may be. Most I think not.

Look at Holland and his “crawl around the Book of Mormon” talk.

Personally I thing critics made a bigger deal out of that talk then they should have. They also dismiss much of the positive and compassionate things the man has said. One talk does not the man make.

And Packer saying that gays and intellectuals and feminists are the greatest threat to the church.

I would concede that Packer is a hard liner.

And Oaks defending Mormons using their political power to impose their morals on the rest of the country

Not familiar with this.

And why would the church give Schryver access to the papyri and the KEP if they thought he was a bad example in some way?

I think they don't really know. In spite of some rumor you mention below I am skeptical that GAs spent their time looking at message boards.

Explain that.

Just did.

And don’t forget that Dan Peterson, who is probably the most powerful and influential Mormon apologist, has been defending Schryver left and right, basically denying that he was guilty of the things that MsJack presented undeniable evidence of.

I am not sure that I have seen him defending Schryver on this. If anything he is guilty of silence on this one.

[_Dan Vogel]

Kevin,

Dan Vogel wrote a book with Metcalfe that directly challenged Dan Peterson's arguments. I can't remember the name right now, but I can get it if you want. I think my point is on solid ground. Dan doesn't get along with anyone who dares challenge his authority or does anything to undermine his Rock Star status.

The book is American Apocrypha, which includes my essay “Anti-Masonry Revisited” that largely responded to DCP’s response to my original 1989 essay. So, we’ve been at it for a long while now. I just don’t take it personally. I think some critics get themselves into trouble because they are ill prepared for someone who is a professional apologist. I would advise them to read at least one good book on debate. That will help them avoid the pit falls they get themselves into with DCP and other apologists.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason, you may be interested in this discussion which took place at MAD way back in 2005:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/680 ... te-reasons

Notice that according to Dan Peterson, there can be no legitimate reason for leaving the Church. And everyone who claims an intellectual reason, is simply lying, and hiding a more personal reason that has to do with desire to sin.

No time to read it all now but I will later. But here is what I see first:

All of the following rests upon on the assumption that the Church is indeed God's true church, and that Mormonism is, in its essence, God's unique saving truth. (Without that assumption, the question seems somewhat pointless.)

From the perspective of eternity, there can be no legitimate reason for leaving the Church of God or for turning one's back upon God's revealed truth and will. Such a decision is simply and always wrong.

However, our knowledge here is limited, fragmentary, imperfect, and distorted. So it's possible that one can leave the Church for reasons that, given the flawed nature of our knowledge in mortality, genuinely appear to be good and sufficient. It's a matter of our perceptions.

But our perceptions are always colored by our own individual personal history, character, knowledge, ignorance, desires, mental and emotional health, ambitions, etc. So no decision to accept the gospel or to reject it is likely to be purely rational, uncolored by "personal" factors.

We can trust that God knows this and appreciates it far better than we do, and that, in his mercy, he will take such factors into account. Those who have sincerely done their best will, I believe, be blessed for it, even if they took mistaken detours. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to tempt God. And those who have lived carelessly, heedlessly, and cynically, are also living recklessly.

Having said all of this, I add for the record that my experience with friends, relatives, and acquaintances who have left the Church has been very similar to Beowulf's. I'm not sure if I know of a single case of purely intellectual apostasy.

At least in this post I do not see him saying that it is simply lying, and hiding a more personal reason that has to do with desire to sin.

[_cafe crema]

Behavior like this doesn't "come across" as fake, it is patently fake. I've seen this from so many people in "missionary mode" that at this point I don't regard anything that comes out of their mouth as genuine. Flattery, concern, friendliness, empathy all of this is questionable from the person who wants you to join their church, and with out a doubt fake from those sent out specifically to proselytize. They are a lot like politicians in this regard, saying what ever they think you want to hear in order to get you into the "pews" of their church.

And who are they? All Mormons? I think café that you have been reading so many posts that are unkind to Mormons that you tend to develop them as your own.

Mormons are just people. The vast majority are neither fake or insincere. But they do believe that their church is the true church and they do wish to share it with others. My daughters have been and are missionaries and they certainly not fake nor do they act like politicians. So, when Mormons are friendly, you become suspicious. When Mormons are kind, you become suspicious. But really that is your own problem. And no one elses.

How do you treat others café? Are you kind? Do you show empathy? Would you like people to join the catholic church? Are you being fake?

The vast majority of people in Mormonism are converts. When do they suddenly become fake?

Did I say they were Mormon? Friendships formed by proselytizing missionaries are initially fake, they may grow into true friendship if the missionary gives time to forming a friendship rather than giving time to convert the person. Most missionaries do not have time needed to form true friendships with the people they encounter, they must reach as many people as they can with their message so true friendships are rarely formed. The missionary's basis for forming friendships is to preach their message and gain converts, nothing else, this makes them like politicians and salespeople who want the vote or the sale.

No I don't become suspicious when people are kind and friendly in my experience most people are, I become suspicious when they pepper me with invitations to their church or, less often, tell me why I need to attend their church.

I certainly try to treat people well, be kind, empathetic, interested in them, but it has nothing to do with wanting them to join the Catholic church. I don't "want" people to join the Catholic church, if they want to do that fine but otherwise I don't bring it up, I don't invite people to church or give them unsolicited information about it. Conversations about church just don't happen with people unless we've already formed a friendship and even then it's usually just a sidebar in a conversation, not something meant to "sell" a religion.

When do they become fake? When they initiate friendship in order to convert.

[_hatersinmyward]

Look at Holland and his “crawl around the Book of Mormon” talk.

Personally I thing critics made a bigger deal out of that talk then they should have. They also dismiss much of the positive and compassionate things the man has said. One talk does not the man make.

Bourne; either the man is one of the best liars around or he is a twisted fool that gets off on fiddling with peoples lives and emotions.

How he starts off the talk by licking his lips with his silver tongue; not to mention the sick look on his face. With more of the same sick look when he uses the words hand, corner and visible then stumbles while saying the word authenticity.

[_moksha]

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.

The Old timers who used to live on 90th South in Sandy, Utah never knew much about the neighbors across the street, since the middle of their street had served as a stake boundary for many years. Had they been in the same stake but just different wards, they would have crossed paths occasionally. Not so with a different stake. The ward was their world and the stake represented the boundary where you would fall off the edge of that world.

.