Meadowchik wrote:Of course those who treat Mormons as the enemy just because they're Mormon was not really the subject here.
Yes! True, and I don't think the Christians who attacked my faith when I was a missionary were trying to be personal with me; they sincerely believed that I was on the path to hell because of my faith.
So, they are indeed opponents of Mormonism, and I do not have to agree to the terms of their opposition. According to my revised terminology, Sandra Tanner, lovely, fine person that she is, is an opponent of Mormonism, and I do not agree with her opposition to Mormonism.
Meadowchik wrote:The distinction I am talking about is what seems to be classifying dissidents in some heirarchichal way. I'd just prefer to focus more on bad arguments and behaviours as being enemies to overall good sense.
That's cool. I hope that opponent works better as a description of a person who has devoted their life to opposing Mormonism.
Meadowchik wrote:And what might appear paradoxical, is that Mormonism taught me to look for truth anywhere including in anyone. So I cannot really accept that definition of enemies, neither now or in that previous life of mine as a believing Mormon.
A person who is sincerely seeking truth, even if it means destroying Mormonism with the truth, cannot be its enemy. In such a case, it is Mormonism which is its own enemy. And those who help identify truth from falsehood are in my opinion giving it the best chance it has to survive its own flaws.
Sandra Tanner has her motives and goals, but more important to me is the information she shares and her manner in sharing.
On the one hand, I agree that Sandra Tanner, being a person of integrity who believes the LDS Church should me more transparent, has done much to bring information about Mormonism to light, when the LDS Church would have preferred to keep it in the dark. Very true. I am grateful for that.
Of course, her motivation in doing so is not to make Mormonism the best it can be on its own terms, but to oppose Mormonism or see that it changes to be what she thinks it ought to be. I don't support that. Indeed, I oppose it. So, I would be an opponent of her aim of opposing Mormonism or remaking it into something that reflects her preferred theology.
It is my opinion that I am not at all inconsistent in appreciating that Sandra is a good person, recognizing that I really do like her, being grateful for all the good things that she has done, and yet not agree with her in her goal of opposing Mormonism.
Let me give you an example of my friendly opposition to the goals of Sandra Tanner. I have been approached (not by Sandra but one of her friends) with a casual offer of perhaps publishing something at UTLM on Joseph Smith's participation in folk magic. On the one hand, I was kind of flattered. After all Marquardt, who is someone I respect as a historian, and someone with whom Don Bradley has co-written an article, published pieces with UTLM. Another fellow I really like and respect, as a scholar and a person of great character, is Ron Huggins, who has also published really good stuff with UTLM.
So, why would I not want to join the ranks of these good people whom I admire in many ways to publish something with UTLM? Is it not a great honor to be approached with a casual offer of making that happen?
While I was flattered, I had absolutely no problem passing on that opportunity. Why? Because it is not my goal to oppose Mormonism. To the contrary, I would have Mormonism be the best it can be, as Mormonism, and not as some variety of Protestant Christianity. This is not because I have a problem with people being Protestants. Be Protestants! Love it! It is because I am a Mormon. The Mormons are my people, and I want Mormonism to be at its best.
I understand that this will make people upset and perhaps boggle their minds, but it is true. You see, I don't really invest that much in whether someone personally believes in every detail of a religion. No one really does. They are devoted to a group, a point of view, or a faith, or they are devoted to something else. Devotion takes all kinds of forms. Criticism can come from a place of devotion. Loving something or someone does not entail agreeing in all particulars. I can love being Mormon and be devoted to Mormonism in my own way without being a member of the LDS Church.
Please note that I will not answer questions about whether I believe X or Y, whether I think Joseph lied about A or B, or how I can live with myself with all the evil Joseph Smith and the LDS Church have done. Anyone who asks these questions has not spent time thinking about what I am saying. And that's OK. I also don't have to answer.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist