A reader named James left this comment for me on the thread titled, "They Push It, Why Can't We?" His comment is something I deal with constantly, so I decided to reply to it here instead of simply replying to the comment itself.
I agree. I think members should try to present their beliefs but not be intruding.James,
Although I don't think that giving somebody a book is pushing anything in anybody's face. They have the book, it is their choice from there to read it.
Oh, and just because it has been on my mind. You claim that what you post is not "anit-mormon" but in reality it is. You compare sharing your beliefs to missionaries sharing theirs. That is a fair comparison but the elders are trying to build the church. That makes them "pro-mormon". So when you post something that will lead people away (pulling somebody who is on the fence is still moving somebody away from the church) this makes what you say "anti-mormon".
It is basically impossible to make "neutral-mormon" statements. You can present facts but interpretations of these facts, being selective about what facts are presented, and assumptions made behind these facts are not neutral.
If a Mormon offers a non-Mormon a Book of Mormon, and that Non-Mormon says, "No, thank you." and that Mormon continues to offer the BoM over and over again over time, it's wrong. That is what this article was about.
Now, lets get into the meat of what your "Oh, by the way..." comment.
It is obvious that you subscribe to this belief: "You are either with us, or against us."
That statement, kind sir, is absolutely wrong.
Lets put this into context... You don't believe in the Catholic Church, or the Jews, and you might take the time to debate their doctrine. Does that immediately make you an anti-Catholic or an anti-Jew? No. It doesn't.
The elders are trying to build their church, but they are not doing this honestly. They are deliberately leaving out key points and information to keep members and potential converts in the dark. More and more people are learning about these things thanks to the internet, and they can't stand back and watch it happen to other people.
In your world, everything is black and white. It's right or wrong. It's not that simple, and we all know it. That isn't how the world works.
I am not an anti-Mormon. That term was specifically created to lump everyone with church doctrine questions together and label them. "Oh those anti-Mormons, don't believe a thing they say, they just want to lead you away from the church." I would tend to guess that you first heard that word in church yourself, huh? What is the purpose of labeling people like this? To discredit them.
My problems with the church and it's doctrine are valid. More than valid. People share in my opinions, but that does NOT mean I am out here because I hate Mormons or the Mormon Church. I disagree with Mormons and I want the Mormon Church to tell the truth.
There is a huge difference between me and a so-called "Anti-Mormon," James. Take a step back and think about it.
I actually take offense when people lump all Mormons together and tell them they are going to Hell. I step up and speak out when I see this happening. I defend Mormon members of the church, my beef is with the leaders who keep things from these members.
I am not an "Anti-Mormon." That term is offense, and I am offended.
June 19, 2008 at 12:58 PM
I have to say I find your blog very non-offensive. Yes, you absolutly call the mormon leaders out but I can't remember a time you called mormon members anything other than mislead. You are fair and honest and I absolutly do not consider you anti-mormon.
My question is: Why, if TBM find your blog offensive, mis-leading or anti-mormon, why would they continue to come back? Because they get informed here. They are learning things about their religion that they can't learn anywhere else because you tell them facts along with your opinions.
I also find it offensive that anyone calls the truth about the church anti-mormon. How can true mormon history be anti-mormon?!
Your blog is not only needed but appreciated so much!
June 19, 2008 at 1:22 PM
I am sorry I offended you, but I am not taking back saying that your words are anti-mormon. I am sorry you are offended, I don't want to attack you personally but I guess our words can sometimes take the form of things we don't intend them to be.
Lets put this into context... You don't believe in the Catholic Church, or the Jews, and you might take the time to debate their doctrine. Does that immediately make you an anti-Catholic or an anti-Jew? No. It doesn't.
I would call it anti-Catholic if you begin to attack their history and the character of individuals who were important to them. There is a difference between presenting your own beliefs and attacking somebody else's.
In your world, everything is black and white. It's right or wrong. It's not that simple, and we all know it. That isn't how the world works.
Really? Because it seems to me you have put the church into a black and white situation. Have have yet to hear you say one good thing about the church.
I actually take offense when people lump all Mormons together and tell them they are going to Hell.
Do you actually know the churches doctrine for the afterlife? From what I understand the only people who will go to "Hell" are those who had an undeniable witness of God then openly rebel against him.
Just so I can better understand your position, what would you define anit-mormon to be? And what do you define your statements about the church as?
June 19, 2008 at 6:35 PM
I think that there is an inherent problem with placing any type of label on anyone period. And anti-mormon isn't the end of it Sydney. I think Mormons and Postmormons really need to reconfigure their thinking here.
Calling someone anything means that there is an inherent 'discourse' that follows on with it about what the 'social' deems to be the characteristics of that individual. Immediately categorising someone as an anti-mormon means carries with it the discourse of a person who is ill-affected with mormonism and as such has a vendetta against them. Often we seem to see these people as full of hate and bitterness towards the church. Not always entirely so. I know an anti-mormon in the strictest sense of the word who is more than loving and kind, but believes we are wrong (in God's eyes).
Similarly though Sydney this is why I got frustrated when someone from the postmormon movement labels me a TBM. Because as evidenced in some of the threads in Postmormon.org, TBM carries also with it a discourse of a card carrying member of the church who won't engage with anyone outside, and who is entirely judgemental on those who have left the church.
Labels are very insulting to anyone I think and we should learn to avoid them entirely. But thats just me speaking...
June 19, 2008 at 11:10 PM
Demand More,
Thank you for your kind words, they mean a lot to me. I am not against Mormons, I am against their own leaders lying to them. I am still a Mormon. I often stick up for believing Mormons... telling them they are just misled or lied to, but I guess to believing Mormons that is "offensive and anti"
James,
You did offend me.
How is actual Mormon history and real fact anti-Mormon? Nothing I have said on this blog is a lie. Nothing. It's just not talked about. Think about it.
I think you dislike my blog because I don't agree with your doctrine. Point blank. You labeled me, and you labeled me incorrectly. You can accept it or not, it's certainly not going to change my mind about who I am or what I am doing here...
Nicko,
I understand where you are coming from with the TBM thing... I usually call TBM's "true, believing Mormons." I don't intend anything negative by using that term... sorry if it upset ya!
June 20, 2008 at 1:08 PM
How is actual Mormon history and real fact anti-Mormon? Nothing I have said on this blog is a lie. Nothing. It's just not talked about. Think about it.
Yes, raw facts are neutral but when it comes to presenting those facts is where the neutrality can disappear.
The person presenting the facts can select what facts to present, something you continually say the church does but you never realize that you do the same.
The person presenting facts can insert their own interpretation of facts. For example.
Joseph Smith was polygamous because he was a perverted man.
Joseph Smith was polygamous because it was a commandment from God.
Joseph Smith was polygamous is the fact, the rest of each of those sentences are not and is what causes the statement to lose it's neutrality.
This is Rhetoric. Formatting words in such a way to convince people.
Correct me if I am wrong but I don't believe I ever called you anti-Mormon, I just called your blog anti-Mormon. I don't know you and it is not fair to make character judgments about you or put labels on you, but I do know your blog.
So we are on the same page, describe to me what anti-Mormon is. Then describe to me what the Mormon related stuff in your blog is that is telling people that the LDS church is not true. What differences do you see?
June 20, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Syd, you are just an evil person....I think that some people get extremely riled up regarding the church and anything that could be negative because their life revolves around it. I know. I used to be one of those people. And losing your faith does royally jack you your life. Learning you have been lied to when you have let your entire life revolve around something you thought was sacred and the perfect truth, will completely jack with your head.
I remember getting lessons where they basically said that anyone who preaches against mormonism is the anti-christ.
Basically, your blog is anti-mormon to them because you aren't afraid to tell the truth. And that is scary to them. Mormonism is all or nothing, black of white. If you aren't good you are evil.
June 21, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Syd,
I don't think I've ever truly been offended by the word TBM, just I think its important we move on from the labels because essentially it does come with stigmas, stereotypes and categorisations which paint us with the general brush. I didn't want to suggest that I was 'shocked' or 'pissed off' by the statement, just slightly frustrated I guess.
Truly confused, I thank you not to paint us all with the same brush yourself please...
June 24, 2008 at 11:06 AM
I guess what Nicko said made realize that me calling your blog anti-Mormon painted with that general brush for others even if I don't plaster you with the connotations associated with it.
Please know that I don't think you are evil. I just feel that your posts tent to pull against the church.
June 24, 2008 at 11:10 AM
James,
My posts are about me and MY feelings about the things I am learning about the church. These are things I should have known the whole time, but someone made the decision to not tell the membership.
If you view me as "against the church" then you should be just as willing to view the church as "against me."
It goes both ways.
I know I am not evil, and that was never once a concern to me. It angers me when people judge my thoughts and feelings without putting themselves in my position. I refuse to stand back and keep my mouth shut about this because there are people out there just like me who are going through the same thing. I am going to be here for them no matter what.
The church's feelings, or anyone in the church will not stop me from doing that.