Why People Dislike Mormons

[_Jason Bourne]

While the church tends to push this, and has created this problem, I find most members not this way. Growing up I never tried to convert my non-lds friends. As a missionary one of the biggest things we lamented about was the lack of members talking to their friends and family about the church. It took a while after my mission to see that this was a good thing. While most members would like to, most know this is a bad idea, and could hurt relationships. Of course we always had a few who went over board talking to everyone they could about it, and they usually ended up with few friends in or out of the church.

You make a good point that I had forgotten really. Most LDS members are very bad at member missionary work and most don't like bringing up the Church to non LDS friends due to putting their friendship in jeopardy.

[_sock puppet]

While the church tends to push this, and has created this problem, I find most members not this way. Growing up I never tried to convert my non-lds friends. As a missionary one of the biggest things we lamented about was the lack of members talking to their friends and family about the church. It took a while after my mission to see that this was a good thing. While most members would like to, most know this is a bad idea, and could hurt relationships. Of course we always had a few who went over board talking to everyone they could about it, and they usually ended up with few friends in or out of the church.

You make a good point that I had forgotten really. Most LDS members are very bad at member missionary work and most don't like bringing up the Church to non LDS friends due to putting their friendship in jeopardy.

And apart from fearing the loss of a friend, I think that some Mormons are simply more respectful of their friends than to try and push a religion on them, even if the COB instructs them to do so.

[_Buffalo]

Attacking people for being kind to people from the outgroup is CLASSIC cult behavior.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the Scientologists, another famous cult, have also produced some people who have enjoyed successful careers (Battlefield Earth notwithstanding).

Most Mormons are too busy with their own lives to care about the outgroup in an hostile way. The ones I know have a let live attitude. Just look at me. I have never been attacked by Mormons at all. They just let me be me. No problem. Now of course, when I attended a fireside recently, a leader whom I have known for quite some time introduced me to the senior missionaries as a catholic Mormon with a smile on his face. But I took it quite well. We are all human and must see one another with understanding.

What would you know about most Mormons? How many decades since you were active?

As for why you weren't attacked, Mr. Graham addressed that.

[_Kevin Graham]

I figured someone like whyme would come along and spin this in a way to suggest this is simply a matter of Mormons being too moral and upright in their beliefs, and/or too busy doing charity and the things the Church teaches, for them to bother with maintaining meaningful relationships with non-LDS folks.

He misses the point for at least the fourth time, however. The point isn't about how busy Mormon life is. We get that. Many of us were Mormons in the past. The point isn't that Mormons aren't likely to hang with people who drink and smoke. We get that. Many of us were Mormons in the past. So this isn't likely to be earth shattering news for anyone here.

The point is simply this. Mormons are fake in their interactions with non-Members and this is why so many people dislike Mormons. It is the same reason people dislike Amway recruiters. They're super nice and outgoing because they want to use you for something. Once they realize they have no use for you, they drop you like a bad habit. What Mormons don't appreciate is the fact that people are social creatures who want to maintain an attachment to those they call friends. This problem became realized when I was on my mission. People (mostly Mexicans) who were baptized were leaving the Church in droves because they became attached to the missionaries who taught them. When the missionaries returned home, many of the people they baptized felt no reason to go back to Church because the missionaries couldn't fellowship them from afar. The Church's answer to this problem was to have local members attend the missionaary discussions so hopefully the convert would maintain an attachment to that person just the same. So when the missionaries leave to go back to Utah or Idaho (grin), the convert has a social reason for remaining active. If you think about it, this essentially proves that many people join the Church to suit sociaal needs, and not because of a geuine belief that the "Church is true."

But back to the point. Mormons are fake by conditioning. They are commanded to act a certain way and to the rest of us this comes across as not genuine. It seems superficial. It appears to be plastic. People do not join the Mormon religion thinking "I'm doing this so I can learn how to make friends with all human beings." No, they join for the same reason most people join a religion. They join because they want what's in it for them. In almost all cases, what's in it for them is salvation for them and their immediate family members. With traditional Christianity, you're not trying to work your way to heaven; you're generally "saved" at the moment of conversion. As such, you can afford to spend time with non-members of your faith. You can afford to be more Christlike and strive for unconditional love. With most Evangelicals I know, all good works that come forth are assumed to be the result of a spiritual transformation.

However, in Mormonism, your salvation is dependent upon your ability to obey the commendments of the Church, and the church is constantly commending its members to do things in the best interest of the Church. This always concerns the need to keep membership growth increasing. The Church teaches its members to manage their time the same way corporate hired motivational speakers try to get employees to manage their time in a way to maximize productivity. There is no time for things that do not pertain to the overall goal of the institution, which is to maximize profits. In the Church, there is no time for things that do not pertain to the goals of the institution, which is to maximize growth (which also maximize profits). This is why so many ex-Mormons complain about the corporate nature of the Church. How the legalistic nature of the Church tends to set aside the individual as irrelevant to the purposes of the whole organization. The Church is all about rules and obedience, very similar to a corporate or military structure. There is no room to complain either. Try voicing your disagreement about something the Church has taught or done, and see what happens. They don't care what you feel as an individual. What they care about is how your attitude and actions will affect the integrity of the institution.

So when it comes to friendships with non-Members, the Church doesn't really encourage this unless the goal is conversion or to 'plant seeds" for them to look back on at a future point - if they ever happen to be in a position to be converted (the idea is that they'll look back on your great example as a super friendly individual and think that this is indicative of God's True Church). It is that simple, and people have caught onto the scam. So Church leadership really doesn't support relationships with non-members at all, since the idea is to make everyone Mormon. I've seen how the Church tries to drive wedged between family members if it happens that some members are non-LDS or are going apostate. What matters, ultimately for them, is what's best for the Church, not the individual. In the end it is all about numbers, the same as it is in an corporaate board room.

[_Kevin Graham]

You guys whine far too much about Mormons. the actual humans that are Mormons range in personality and sincerity just like other groups.

Your hand-waving dismissal doesn't even begin to address the evidence in support of the thesis I submitted. In fact, your response is exactly what we'd expect from an apologist who is incapable of self-reflection or acknowledging any fundamental flaws in the LDS system. But that is fine, as you're essentially illustrating why the Church will never be able to overcome this problem. Their image will always be this way, and ever increasing, precisely because it and its members refuse to acknowledge flaws in God's perfect system. I mean, the Church is run by God, right? And God is perfect. This is why Mormons love to say what the Church tells them to say: "the Church is perfect, not the people." However, this is incoherent since the people run the Church. The Church's instructions on how to interact with non-Members was designed by Church hired psychologists and marketers, not by God. The same group of professionals who are hired to design commercial ads that lure people into buying products, are the same people who produce and direct Church videos/commercials/films. So many businessmen become GA's because they are experts in trying to figure out how to maximize profit and productivity. They use every man-made persuasion technique because they know they need to. But if it were all a matter of God sending down his spirit to convert the masses to the truthfulness of Mormonism (as the apologists love to insist) then the Church wouldn't need to engage in the same cheap tactics used by those who try to sell cereal to children, using just the right colors, just the right music, just the right cartoon character, etc.

Edit: Stem would love to dismiss this as another anti-Mormon gripe, but the fact is this was important enough to be talked about at a FAIR conference. It is a real and serious issue in the Church that many Mormons have tried to grapple with. Apparently, Stem is one of those who thinks he can dismiss serious issues by downgrading them to anti-Mormon "whine" or what not. Oh well, it is his loss. The more people in the church act this way, the more obvious the problem will be. It is, after all, their problem, not ours. Their denial about the matter doesn't affect us one way or the other. It is their Church that is losing credibility in the eyes of the public.

[_Kevin Graham]

You make a good point that I had forgotten really. Most LDS members are very bad at member missionary work and most don't like bringing up the Church to non LDS friends due to putting their friendship in jeopardy.

Well it depends on a number of factors. Are we talking High School kids or grown adults? Are we talking Mormon dominant areas, or Birmingham Alabama?

When I moved to Atlanta there were no more than a dozen Mormon kids in our school of 4,000. So yes, they had a tendency to keep their religion to themselves. But then again, they were just kids. They also had a tendency to congregate together during lunch, and be somewhat introverted with non-LDS kids. I was the only "non-member" who sat with them at lunch, actually. I was constantly being invited to Church activities, though they never tried to push me towards baptism. But then again, why would I expect this from kids between 14 and 17?

However, in Utah the opposite is true. What does someone really have to lose by sharing a religion with someone who is clearly a minority? Mormonism is the peer pressure thing in Utah, so people can follow along and be like everyone else.

So the point is, where Mormonism has a strong foothold in society, it is more likely to impose its will on the people.

[_consiglieri]

How did you feel about your friends' Mormon leaders that you no doubt learned at some point in time encouraged him to befriend (they specifically call it, fellowship) non-Mormons with an aim towards baptizing them? I do not fault your friend, after all he was likely under immense social pressure and 'fear of the Mormon god' to do just what he did.

I have to say that my friend was friends with me for four years before I was baptized. He invited me to special church functions (I particularly remember a fireside with Randy Bachman), and to church dances. I think I went to a church dance just about every weekend. We had a great time.

It was only every now and then my friend brought up religion.

At the end of my senior year, I think I floored him when I was the one who brought up taking the missionary discussions.

I found out later from him that the Friday evening activities at his house were specifically missionary oriented, even though nothing about the church was brought up overtly. It was also a great place to go and have fun with friends.

And I should probably note on my friend's behalf that there were others that attended dances and Friday night activities, but never converted, and that my friend still has friendships with those peole, as well.

So I think that, even though he was looking for people he could convert, it wasn't a situation where if they didn't joint he church he disowned them or had nothing more to do with them.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. I sometimes gave my friend (whose name was Bruce) grief about his religion. I remember one day in advanced placement English our senior year when a sweet Catholic cheerleader was talking about the Pope (yes, this was in class), and I asked her if she believed the Pope was infallible. When she said yes, I blurted out in front of the class, "Well, that's nothing! Bruce has a prophet who walks and talks with God!"

(Sometimes you have to sacrifice for sharing the gospel . . .)

[_Dan Vogel]

Kevin,

Thanks Dan. I also remember a heated feud between FARMS and Signature Books some years ago. I believe either you or George Smith wrote a blistering response to at attack made by FARMS. It was linked to the Signature Books website but is no longer available. Or is it? I also remember Dan Peterson making such a big stink of you calling Joseph Smith a pious fraud. I also remember him referring to your books as not very good. He's just never had anything good to say about you or your scholarship, from what I have seen.

I’m checking on why the link to my response to the Hedges is no longer on the Signature site.

Recently, Peterson said this on the Spalding thread:

But I'll be serious: Dan V. and I disagree very fundamentally about a whole range of things. I think he's seriously misguided (as he does me). But, while it's true that he lacks a Ph.D. -- which doesn't matter nearly as much to me as you might think it does -- he has a very impressive record of publishing.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=485407#p485407

Like I said, Dan Peterson doesn't like anyone who dares challenge his authority. If you know your place, keep your distance and your mouth shut, you might have a chance to fall in his good graces. Otherwise you're his enemy.[/quote]

I can’t say if this is true or not. I’m not around enough to observe this kind of pattern. I’m not sure what challenging his authority means. How would one know if they’re in his good graces (assuming that is a good place to be) if they don’t post anything?

But I disagree with you if you're trying to say Dan is a master of debate. He doesn't debate, period. When has he ever debated anyone aside from that silly tag-team spat he and Hamblin had with James White ten years ago? The only reason they entered that "debate" was because they had a laundry list of criticisms about White's book, knowing perfectly well White wouldn't have any idea what they were going to present. Of course this would mean they'd leave the debate victorious. Dan only picks the battles he knows he can win, and when he accidentally steps foot into a situation where he realizes he can't win, he suddenly has to attend to his academic duties and leave the forum for a while until the situation blows over.

I’m not familiar with the James White affair, but you seem to know Dan’s habits better than I. From what I’ve seen, Dan handles himself quite well in debate. He just doesn’t want to get bogged down in a long drag-out debate like the one I participated in on the 128-page Spalding thread, and I don’t blame him. I think he has other priorities besides winning a debate in a no-win situation.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Thanks Dan. I also remember a heated feud between FARMS and Signature Books some years ago. I believe either you or George Smith wrote a blistering response to at attack made by FARMS. It was linked to the Signature Books website but is no longer available.

FARMS's account of the "feud" can be read here:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... um=1&id=78

I've said in the past that I would very much like to see this "memo" that supposedly cleared FARMS and BYU of attempts at censoring Signature's publications.

[_Kevin Graham]

I’m not familiar with the James White affair, but you seem to know Dan’s habits better than I. From what I’ve seen, Dan handles himself quite well in debate. He just doesn’t want to get bogged down in a long drag-out debate like the one I participated in on the 128-page Spalding thread, and I don’t blame him. I think he has other priorities besides winning a debate in a no-win situation.

Hi Dan,

I think you give Dan too much credit and I think you're reading more into his comment than what he intended. He thinks you're a sloppy scholar. Your books are long on wind but short on substance. I recall him specifically saying they were "not very good." I have seen him critique the quality of your scholarship on several occasions, essentially implying that you were not a good scholar. Your citation above refers to an "impressive publication record," but I could say the same about Kerry Shirt's publication record (video publications). However, this comment speaks to quantity, not quality.

And if what you say is true about his limited time, then how does one explain his thousands upon thousands of posts on several forums over the years? He spends far more time on these forums than most critics do and instead of engaging us in debate, he'll run back to FARMS and publish some article criticizing us because he knows that there will be no one to challenge his arguments. And when we try to do so online, he suddenly has a professional obligation he needs to tend to. It is the same song and dance I've witnessed from him since 2003. Dan wants to do what he does best, and that is lecture. He is rarely ever interested in open discussion. Never debate.

I also recall an incident on ZLMB back in 2004 when Brent Metcalfe made a comment about how he wished critics and apologists would do a better job of getting along. Dan Peterson agreed with him and spoke to him as if they were friends. But then shortly afterward Brent made a comment that I, even as an apologist, thought was rather innocuous. I think it had to do with the title of his presentation at the Galileo event. Anyway, Dan wrote indignantly towards Brent saying something along the lines that he guesses Brent wasn't serious at trying to build bridges, or whatever. He seems to have written of Brent ever since then.

And by challenging his authority, I simply mean anyone who challenges any of his apologetic claims. His authority, as the king apologist and doctrinal guru of the Church is taken for granted, and he knows it. I tried to offer a rather mild critique of his Asherah-Nephi theory way back in 2004, and he and Hamblin had a conniption fit. My response was very thorough and evidence-based, and of course Dan disappeared for a week before returning to dismiss my argument as "hostility" towards him. I have a lot of these older "debates" saved digitally, and plan to organize and post them online at some point.

The point is, Dan doesn't debate, because he doesn't engage in battles he knows he cannot win. He will tell me over and over and over he refuses to engage me on a number of slam dunk arguments I have against his claims. But then, whenever I misspeak or say something in error, Dan will gladly and expeditiously "engage" me by starting a new thread to highlight my error, because by doing so, he knows it is an easy win for him. So he only wants to engage me when he thinks he can score quick and easy points.

So no, Dan isn't disinterested in polemics. He lives for it. He is the only scholar I know who has published more on unrelated apologetics than to anything relating to his professional career (Islamicist). His problem is that he tries to defend too many positions which he knows are logically untenable.

Oh and Dan, if you could resurrect that hyperlink from signaturebooks, I would appreciate it.