One thing many anti-Mormons have managed to convince the general public is that Latter-day Saints allegedly think that all non-members are “anti-Mormon.” Why is this?
When we point out bad deeds from SOME non-Mormons, do we leave an impression that we condemn EVERY non-Mormon, even those who commit no such bad acts? Could this impression be why non-Mormons think we refer to them, too as “anti-Mormon,” when we are not? If so, then, of course, we must be more clear.
Could the bad acts of a few reflect adversely on the whole? Certainly. Failure of normative Islam to condemn the dastardly deeds of Islamofascists, like intentionally targeting civilians–especially children, could lead non-Muslims to conclude that normal Muslims condone, if not approve of Islamofascist tactics. To the Latter-day Saint, failure to condemn the Haun’s Mill Massacre and the extermination order implies that most Christians would not object to the slaughter of Latter-day Saints This may have made the Mountain Meadows Massacre more likely, and the failure of Brigham Young and others to be swift enough to stop this atrocity or at least bring its perpetrators to justice (though all local authorities were excommunicated, and the leader of the attack, John Lee, was also executed) meant to Evangelicals that Latter-day Saints were a violent, lawless people.
However, it is unfair to condemn the peaceful, law-abiding majority for the horrible sins of the few. More Muslims were involved in keeping the accumulated knowledge of the ancients accessible than were engaged in Islamofascist-style jihad. More Evangelical Christians were–and are–involved in ending slavery and extending medical care and other help to the needy than participated in events like the Crusades. And the Mountain Meadows Massacre is a one-time blot in the annals of Mormonism, whose members are wont to extend relief help–even to anti-Mormons–rather than kill them.
Mind you, it is not necessarily wrong to be anti-something–per se. I am vehemently anti-Islamofascist (but not anti-Muslim!), because I believe that bombing little children into eternity is not an acceptable expression of Islam.
Other types of anti-isms, on the other hand, are clearly wrong. The Ku Klux Klan, using terror to inject its anti-Black views on society, would certainly qualify as an example of an evil anti-ism. By the by, I am also anti-KKK! 😉
In order to get a clear idea of what anti-Mormonism is we must also be clear what it is not. It is not anti-Mormon merely to be unpersuaded by LDS truth claims. While I think that Dr. Mike Adams pays too much credence to anti-Mormons in assessing the character of Joseph Smith, his assumption of our good faith and use of a single standard (i.e., he accepts our portrayal of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, and he doesn’t change the definition of Christian when we meet it) disqualifies him as an “anti-Mormon.”
My Assemblies of God in-laws would also be disqualified. While they are clearly unsympathetic to our distinctive theology (and my mother-in-law tells us we’re in the wrong Church! 😉 ), they refrain from judging us as non-Christians, and they don’t try to force us to admit that we believe things that we don’t!
Obviously, those who killed LDS children on the grounds that “Nits make lice,” are anti-Mormons. So are those who excuse such acts. It utterly escapes me why those who believe that Latter-day Saints deserve to die and eternally burn in hell would object to the label “anti-Mormon.” If Latter-day Saints are truly as, say, Fred Phelps, Bill Keller, and Lilburn Boggs claim, then why not be up front about opposing them, as I am about opposing Islamofascism?
Actually, I can respect Rev. Phelps and Reverend Keller; at least they are up front about their antipathy, even though it is wrong-headed. Their candor is so refreshing, compared to the duplicitous protestations of “love” for the benighted “Mormon”–even as they do such vile things as ridicule them, bear false witness against them, and subject them to double standards–and, at various times and places, kill them. It is better to know where one stands than to be ambushed by betrayed trust.
Perhaps this aversion to being labeled “anti-Mormon” comes from the fact that they often express this opposition by distorting LDS belief (e.g., the old Jesus-is-the-brother-of-Satan canard, expressed by “Finn,”), or by falsifying LDS belief (e.g., Decker and Hunt’s charge that the Church is plotting to violently overthrow the constitutional US government to initiate a theocratic reign of terror on Evangelical Christians)–in an effort to make Latter-day Saints seem weird, or bizarre. Moreover, they use hypocritical double standards in their efforts to deny the status of Christian to Latter-day Saints who proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour, by accusing them of either lying about their faith or being too stupid to know that they follow somebody other than Christ.
These “straw men” creations are vulnerable to ridicule–but their victims are not made of straw, but flesh-and-blood human beings. As Rhonda Abrams, Regional Director of the Anti-Defamation League, points out, this is on a continuum leading to a point where people feel justified in committing atrocities on those who are “evil.” While it is enjoyable to see this tendency in others, nobody likes seeing this evil in themselves–hence the rationalisation. Those who use less-than-integral means of attacking the Church would like to make it appear that we paint with an over-broad brush, which would dilute the meaning of the word, making us appear unreasonable. This, too, is a sore spot among Latter-day Saints.
In point of fact, the term “anti-Mormon” has a very strict and narrow meaning: Those who are in active opposition to Mormonism–what we do, what we believe, and what we are. Under this definition, the vast majority of non-Mormons would NOT be anti-Mormons.
While anti-Mormons DO exist, Latter-day Saints who do not properly define the term contribute unnecessarily to an “us versus them” mentality that contravenes both Christian love and rational dialogue.
And I hope this post keeps rational dialogue alive.
Good comments. I’ve never understood why some people, who are anti-Mormon, pretend to take offense to that title.
A note in passing:
The term “Islamofascist” is closely related to the term “Mormon cult” in that (a) they are both inaccurate and (b) they are designed to provoke emotional rather than rational, thoughtful reactions. Both terms are propaganda used by a certain segment that wants to incite a militaristic response.
Steven and I have discussed this amongst ourselves, but I wanted to make my disagreement here public. Contrary to popular belief, not all FAIR volunteers think exactly alike on every issue. 🙂
Hi Mike!
Under your reasoning, perhaps we ought to stop using the term anti-Mormon altogether–and give in to them! 😉
I use the word, “Islamofascist” to distinguish these extremist, militant murderers from mainstream Islam. It is a recognition that normal Muslims don’t do dastardly stuff like suicide bombing civilian children, and the Islamofascists are NOT going to become nice guys if we give in to their demands.
Really, Mike, the PA responding to the Israeli offer to give them 95% of what whey wanted with an intifida back in 2000 (and the PA were more “moderate” than Hezbollah!) should have told you SOMETHING!
Steven,
I have no objection to the term “anti-Mormon” because it is accurate. “Islamofascist,” on the other hand, implies that militant Islam (a perfectly acceptable term, BTW) incorporates the methods and goals of fascism, which it does not.
Militant Islam is a hyper-fundamentalist religious advocacy held by loose alliance of disparate groups who have a single goal: to harm those who oppose Islam and who (in their view) persecute and harass Muslims.
Fascism, on the other hand, is a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, who forcibly suppresses opposition and criticism, and regiments the military and all industry and commerce to the party. It emphasizes aggressive nationalism and often racism.
I recognize that “normal Muslims don’t do dastardly stuff,” and I fully accept that we should not “give in to [the] demands” of militant Islamics. I merely object to the term “Islamofascist” because, as a I stated above, it’s inaccurate and designed for propagandistic effect.
Exactly like the term “Mormon cult.”
Some critic’s of the Restoration are anti-Restoration, and some are just critic’s. If someone has an agressive ministry to Book of Mormon believer’s i consider then Anti-Restoration. But if one is just a member of another faith who passionately disagree’s i am not quick to judge them as anti-Restoration.
Us Reorganized LDS are the target of anti-Mormon activity also. I don’t see any such ministry or person involved as pro-LDS, or pro-Community of Christ member.
I had a guy tell me he love’s Mormon’s, but hate’s Mormonism. You can sense the hate that some of these people carry with them. To me you can’t hate my faith and not hate me because it’s a part of me. Yet i try and sense that some of these people really do want me to be saved from hell which is nice of them. So i try and look beyond their prejudice to find good in them.
I don’t know over using label’s help’s me. Certainly they should not be dignified with being called pro-Mormon. But i try not to call them anti-Mormon in conversation. It’s about as good a label to fight over as it is the phony cult label they came up with. Until they stop the name calling i won’t stop calling them anti-Mormon. Consider me a type of cristian though heretical and i will stop calling them anti-Mormon.
I have met some LDS critic’s. I met several time’s with the person who has the terrible Mormon’s in Shock website. I met Dr. Crane who was in the Godmaker’s film. I met very briefly Ed Decker and Jim Spencer. I met Mark Care’s who wrote Speaking The Truth in Love To Mormon’s. He Pastor’s a local church. He was the only critic i met in that i felt good about.
I met Dr. Crane because i had written his college a letter asking about the person’s in Ed Decker’s film. It was when Robert L. and Rosemary Brown’s expose book on them came out. So he called thinking i was in cahoot’s with them. I was sad to hear that the expose on Jerald and Sandra Tanner Robert L. and Rosemary Brown was working on will never be published. I hate to see their cabinet’s full of information end up in the trash, or some archive.
Two of the critic’s lived in Nampa, Idaho where i live. Ed Decker and Jim were at Cornerstone Worship center in Nampa, Idaho giving a lecture.
I just try to meet the Anti-Mormon activist’s whenever possible to size them up.
Hi Mike!
Militant Muslims (or at least the leadership!) tend to be trained in western universities, which are often socialist in outlook. Further, these leaders have often expressed sympathy for both Hitler’s aims and tactics. Moreover, the only thing they have against Hitler is that he didn’t finish the job.
While fascism (at least in its German variety) is *national* socialist rather than regional or global, if we view it in light of militant Islam’s desire for one pan-Islamic empire, and their adimiration for fascism’s greatest leader, Adolf Hitler, the word, “Islamofascism” seems to me a close-enough description of these extremists.
Thanks for the comments. The trouble I have with the LdS is the same with any other religion. Do you believe the Tower of Babel story, Noah’s great flood, young earth, etc.? These fly in the face of reason and need to be addressed. Mormonism is just a very literal religion that makes specific claims, so it becomes an easy target. Also, being criticized by other religions as well as non-religious people would seem to be overwhelming. I love you all, but I think you are misled.
Hi James!
Sorry it took so long to answer.
Thinking that we’re wrong is one thing; actively trying to undermine our faith is what separates the anti-Mormons from the those who aren’t (Mind you, I am NOT saying that you qualify!).
To answer your questions, yes, yes, no, respectively–though not necessarily how it has been traditionally understood. For example, I can believe that there was a Troy and a Trojan War and an Odysseus, without believing all of the stuff that goes with it.
Come to think of it, why can’t the Greek gods be evolutionary advanced beings who did weird things there and then? Moreover, why wouldn’t Jehovah qualify as an advanced being? In what way would they fly in the face of reason? Is there evidence that there are NOT advanced beings that can be called gods?
The trouble you encounter is that answering yes to any of those questions means it can be tested. There is nothing to suggest, outside of the bible, that they did. Also, for the LdS it becomes even harder. If you assume on can speak with god on a level higher or in more detail than the average person, then they are held to a higher standard. Mormon prophets indicate that the answer is “yes” to all three of those statements. Continuing revelation then becomes an ad hoc explanation since it can change as new evidence becomes available.
As to your last paragraph, you start wandering into strange territory in your suggestion that god is simply an advanced alien. The point is, anything supernatural is absurd. The truth is that something may just be more complex than you can imagine at the moment.
> The trouble you encounter is that answering yes to any of those questions means it can be tested. There is nothing to suggest, outside of the bible, that they did. Also, for the LdS it becomes even harder. If you assume on can speak with god on a level higher or in more detail than the average person, then they are held to a higher standard. Mormon prophets indicate that the answer is “yes” to all three of those statements. Continuing revelation then becomes an ad hoc explanation since it can change as new evidence becomes available. As to your last paragraph, you start wandering into strange territory in your suggestion that god is simply an advanced alien. The point is, anything supernatural is absurd. The truth is that something may just be more complex than you can imagine at the moment.
Which doesn’t eliminate the supernatural. You being unconvinced that the supernatural exists doesn’t require me to conclude that it doesn’t.