Apology accepted.

We MUST always remember to NOT defend bad behaviour by one of our own. Such defences only serve to make enemies think that such bad behaviour is standard for our group.

Ditto with bad scholarship. Why should we expect others to take us seriously if we apparently approve of such intellectual laziness?

I wasn’t asking you to believe in Mormonism; just asking for the work ethic and honesty needed to get basic facts right!

And we should be SURE that we got our facts RIGHT!

I DO realise that we are humans, and sometimes we’re wrong. In those cases, we should own up to it–and correct it–ASAP.

Thank you for the understanding. I think the point we are coming to is that if both sides are really in the pursuit of truth, and most of the time I think they are, there is/should be no need for any of us to try and “win” or defeat the other.

Further, I know that non-LDS have many good traits. See this post:

http://www.fairblog.org/2008/05/03/seven-admirable-things-about-islam/

My wife’s parents are graduates of a local Bible College (now a university). I think it is “fair” to say that they are unsympathetic to Joseph Smith claims! I would NOT classify them as anti-Mormon, however; they accept–at face value–our profession–and confession–of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour–even though they believe our theology to be defective. Anti-Mormons, on the other hand, refuse to accept this LDS confession as genuine; it is this starting point of Mormon-as-liar that makes them anti-Mormon–and makes productive dialogue with them impossible.

Moreover, I do not believe that Cowboy is an anti-Mormon–his self-identification as a “critic” notwithstanding. For one thing, he is too willing to see the good that the LDS have–and too unwilling to believe the bad–just because it supports the theory of LDS as evil.

Furthermore, neither my in-laws nor Cowboy is intent on destroying the LDS movement–nor are they willing to undermine testimonies.

All-in-all, Mr. Paxton, I call Schroeder an anti-Mormon because what he writes fits the definition. He clearly wants to undermine the LDS faith, and he is–obviously–not squeamish about whether or not what he says about us is entirely accurate. Frankly, Sir, your earlier defence of Mr. Schroeder’s claims because it fit your negative paradigm of the LDS brought you dangerously close to anti-Mormonism–if not over the line.

There is nothing, per se, wrong with being anti-something. For example, I am anti-homosexual behaviour (though, because I see nothing immoral with being tempted, not even with same-sex attraction, I am NOT anti-homosexual!), because I would like to see that behaviour stop. However, I would balk at using unfair tactics in anti-homosexual behaviour activities–like denying them basic human rights, like the right to dispose of their property as they will, or the right to associate (or even cohabitate) with whomever they will [They can even call their relationship a marriage, but I draw the line at them using the state to force ME to call it a legitimate marriage!], or even life itself.

I would wish that anti-Mormons would refrain from using unfair tactics in their efforts. I think that those unfair tactics–once unearthed–discredit anti-Mormonism among fair-minded people!

I can see your point of view on that. It’s yet another situation where the badly-behaved have ruined something for the rest of us.

(I was going to substitute “minority” and “majority” in that sentence, but, honestly, I don’t even know if that’s a true statement. Certainly, they are more vocal and visible, but I can’t say what percentage of the group they constitute…)

As before, I agree with and appreciate your take on the matter. I can agree that context largely affects the gravity with which a label is recieved, but the term “anti-Mormon” has a connotation in the Church that can longer be considered a benign identifier. A corallary might be terms used to identify the disabled. Many of the terms started off as non-offensive references, but through time and usage have come to socially unacceptable.

When I think of an Anti-Mormon, I tend to think of a career “Mormon Hater”. The one that always comes to mind is Ed Decker, the force behind “The Godmakers”.

I guess my problem overall with the labels, is not that really any personal offense. Instead I get discouraged when issues are being dismissed by resorting to the labels in a discussion. Often when we refer to Anti-Mormons in a group of Church members it is to explain away a persons complaints without ever really explaining anything. The same goes for the term cult. When someone outside of the Church is trying to justify the observable devoutness of active Mormons, it is easier to just throw out a cult label than to try and understand that persons spirituality.

I agree with this to a certain extent. But I think it depends on the context in which the label is being applied. Certainly, if it is blatantly obvious that someone is not taking a valid point into consideration on the grounds that the point-maker was nothing more than a “vile anti-Mormon”, or a “brainwashed TBM”, then there are some serious issues there.

I think it’s a matter of connotation. We don’t like the labels, because we think it means people are saying that we lack the ability to THINK. You don’t want to be called “anti-Mormon” – you want to be called “pro-intellect”. We don’t want to be called “brainwashed cultists”, we want to be called “people of faith”. Or something like that. Is that about right?

For my part, and as I have already said above, I don’t use the term “anti-Mormon” as a commentary on anyone’s intelligence, or self-worth. It is merely a representation of their chosen position in the debate.

Now, the term “cultist” has a VERY hateful connotation, in my mind (in addition to being patently untrue). I would be very curious to hear a similar defense of that, I must admit.

Secondly, I think the problem with the Anti-Mormon label is that it is a thought terminating cliche` intended to discredit without engaging. In other words it becomes a label, much like “TBM” or “cult”, that is intended to pre-qualify a person/groups position on religious matters.

There is no question that both parties can and do have people within their group who react poorly in their interactions with each other. The problem that Craig is addressing is that the mormon model of the typical Anti-Mormon is a false stereo-type, that suggests their anger and vitriol is an irrational angst against the Church. Instead he feels like there are legitimate matters of inquiry not sufficiently satisfied in the corporate narrative, and that these matters are/can be both rational and dispassionate. This notwithstanding, yes you are right there are “anti-Mormons” out there if that is the label you prefer, ie not everybody in know agree’s with/believes in the Church – which fact say’s very little about qualitative nature of this reality.

In my post of 13 April, I expressed the opinion that it is bad behavior for Mormons to respond with anger to unfair criticism. No doubt some of us have thin skins, and can be too quick to apply the label of “anti-Mormon” to others.

Nevertheless, anti-Mormons do exist, and some are remarkably thin-skinned themselves. They publish scurrilous attacks on the beliefs and practices of the LDS Church, but bristle at the suggestion that they are anti-Mormon. They can dish it out but not take it.

I would not label a book or author as anti-Mormon merely for providing, as you put it, “an alternative view of Mormonism.” It greatly depends on what the alternative view is, how it is presented, and to what uses it is put.

Let me give you a historical example. Walter Jaeger, in his Early Christianity and the Greek Paideia (Oxford Univerity Press, 1969) writes about the rise of Christian apologetics in the second century AD:

Christians had to face the accusation of outright cannibalism because in the eucharist they ate the flesh and drink the blood of their God. They were called atheists because they did not worship the gods of the state. They denied divine honor to the Emperor himself, so their atheism was at the same time political subversion.

Anyone accusing Christians of cannibalism would no doubt have claimed he was simply offering an alternative understanding of Christianity; but can be no question that the charge was inherently (and deliberately) anti-Christian, intended to defame rather than explain.

Some anti-Mormon stuff is nearly that bad.

I respect most of the administrators of the FAIR Blog and find this blog to be more than generous with posters who share my particular view of Mormonism.

Apologetics is a spirited sport…I enjoy the game and the simulating thought expansion processes that is required to participate with the educated participants of this blog.

I come from the Wild West antics of RFM, where the only rule is that Mormonism can’t be defended. I’ve moved on from that board (although it will always hold a special place in my recovery). The FAIR blog (I am learning) is more like NPR’s Diane Rheem’s Show where civil conversation is the norm rather than an O’Riely Factor…no holds barred yelling match. Mutual respect, if not achieved, is at least the goal. Am I wrong?

In posting my thoughts to this post it was never my intention to defend the scholarship of Schroeder’s book. I took issue with Danderson’s claim that his book was “typical” of “anti-Mormon” books. But that is only the case if ALL books that do not support the official LDS viewpoint are lumped together as being “anti”. If there are shades of grey…if we can move past the emotionally charged use of “anti” for everything that offers an alternative view of Mormonism, then Schroeder’s poor scholarship might just be the epitome of “anti” BECAUSE of his loose use of facts and his poor scholarship.

So in this alternative world, books by Quinn, Compton, Southerton or Avery and Newell, wouldn’t be lumped together as so called “anti-Mormon books”… they would just be books that offer alternative views or expanded understanding to traditional orthodox Mormonism. But in saying this, I fear that Mormon apologetic cannot allow even this small concession to a more pragmatic view of alternative voices…there is something inherent in Mormon apologetics that requires a strict adherence to dogmatic views. Plus by lumping all alternative views to orthodoxy and casting them as “anti”, the LDS Church can continue to maintain control over the reading material of it’s membership…so perhaps my wish is a mere pipe dream…

Will we ever find common ground and understanding?

From a fellow critic, it is really pretty simple. The argument you raise is that the Church is not honest with it’s history. Using the logic you did to defend Schroeders book, I could also say that the Church may have missed the details in how tells it’s story, but it got the gist. The fact of the matter is, and it really just this simple, we cannot allow the shody reporting alleged to have come from this book, stand. It is an example of poor scholarship at best, and a sinister example of duplicity at worst.

For what it is worth, Craig, and regardless of what your beliefs are, Joseph Smith and or President Monson are not participating on these boards. The people who participate here are mostly comprised of members of the Church who really do believe it. Whatever axe you have to grind with those in charge of the Church who you feel are dishonest, is better not to be brought into these conversations.

This discussion breaks down when certain types of language are introduced. For example, when sweeping generalizations (i.e. “LDS apologists use labels to marginalize and discount those who disagree with them”) and phrases such as “we are better informed than you” are used. You wouldn’t tolerate that behavior from LDS apologists, would you?

What if I had said to you: “You were once a faithful and clear-thinking member of the church, until you allowed Satan to enter your heart and corrupt your thinking.” You wouldn’t stand for that, would you? And I wouldn’t blame you. That’s childish behavior.

The whole reason I am harping on you for defending Schroeder’s ballpark figures is that the details matter! Context, motivation, accuracy – all of these things could make or break a case for or against someone. Surely a man who values being well informed would want the whole truth before formulating an important opinion on something. What if the crucial information you gathered before deciding to leave the church turned out only to have been “the jist” of the matter?

If the church chooses to be selective about what information to publish and make widely-known, that’s their business. Every thing is available to those who make inquiry, as you yourself know perfectly well. When the church chooses not to publish polygamy or the Mountain Meadows Massacre in its missionary pamphlets, you call it non-full disclosure. We call it milk before meat. There are principles of salvation that are given to and designed for the weakest of us all, and there are many other things which are often hard to be understood. Think of it as a large tree, with the essential doctrines being the trunk, and the obscure and ancillary pieces of history as the far-reaching branches. Those branches, when ventured out onto, are often perilous without the proper preparation and caution being taken beforehand.

Speaking for myself alone…I was given a warning by my then stake president, that if I were to share any of the information I had learned (and had previously shared with him) with any member of my ward, stake or family…I would be subjected to severe church discipline. I rejected his gag order…and the rest is history.

Why is the church so afraid of its own foundational stories when told in its full unvarnished, un-whitewashed, non-faith promoting rawness. Why does Christ’s so-called true church need to sugar coat its history to make it more palatable to its uninformed membership? Why does Mormonism’s so called truths need to be propped up and supported with a faithful version? If it is what it claims to be…it seems to me that its foundational stories should stand [or fall] on their own merit and not be in need of any purification process. But hey that’s just me.

Regarding Ryan’s point… asking why I [can’t] recognize the weakness of Schroeder’s writing due to his “horseshoes and hand grenades” accuracy.

My friend (can I call you my friend?) perhaps I made a very poor attempt at pointing out the flaws I saw in Danderson’s post. To me he was attempting to use this outlandish example of so-called anti-Mormonism to smear all works that do not conform to his beliefs, while ignoring the fact that Schroeder did get the jist correct…just not the details. I don’t know how else to say what I’ve already said so many times before… I guess my BYU English major degree just didn’t equip me with the skills necessary to communicate my ideas in an understandable manner. (OK, to the relief of all…that was a joke…I was neither a BYU grad nor English major)

Let me again be very clear…I do NOT defend Schroeder’s lousy scholarship…he got just about all the specific’s wrong (according to Danderson). I understand that Mormonism has been the beneficiary of many distortions of its basic belief system by many of its critics…and perhaps the church is rightly entitled to its thin skin when it comes to this sort of thing…but once again I do find it rather ironic that the thin skinned church can be just as loose with facts and full disclosure as many of the same critics they like to cast as “Anti”.

*An “edit” function, please!*

There’s no doubt that labels can be a quick and easy card to play sometimes, particularly when we feel very comfortable (read: smug? ) in the position we have taken.

It’s good to raise awareness, though, and I hope everyone takes something positive away from this.

One caveat, I suppose: Sincerity often plays a role in how quick I am to apply a label to someone. Since the internet is a veritable fool’s paradise sometimes, those who are lacking in sincerity will often be branded, and deservedly so. There is the occasional “troll” to be found on here, but I it’s apparent enough who is honest in their pursuit of truth, and who is not.

I think we have been arguing semantics, because I agree entirely with your last comment. I think your insight into the motivation behind the terms is good as well. Sometimes we have a tendency to use the terms inadvertently because they have become common identifiers for us, even though no malice is intended. My Granpa is serving a mission in the south, and during his time has built a number of relationships with African Americans there. He has never been a racist, but doesn’t blink an eye to throw out the phrase “cotton pickin” as common language on any given day. Perhaps sometimes we are doing the same thing with our religious identifiers.

The trouble is, I think our perception of how we’re being treated often comes into play here. We tend to get defensive when we sense that we’re being written off due to an apparent “categorization”, where such an offense was quite possibly not intended.

I can see both sides in this case. I don’t think offense was intended by the use of the term “anti-Mormon” by Danderson. I don’t speak for him, but speaking from my own experience, I know that it’s sometimes very easy to throw out a label in reference to somebody, particularly after prolonged see-sawing discussions where weariness has set in. That is not to say that Danderson has gone to the “anti” card because he’s got nothing left, but it’s easy to imagine the feeling of banging one’s head against a wall, and perhaps hastily turning to a label in order to punctuate your point further. It goes both ways, as well, when people go to the “cultist” card, as you generously pointed out.

Bottom line, in order for intellectual discourse to be had at any kind of civilized level (a TALL ORDER when it comes to religion), we must all be cautious with how we throw labels around. Every one must be judged according to the content of their posts.

I see your point to some degree, and realize that my determination of what classifies an “anti” was somewhat incomplete. Obviously, just not believing in the Church could not be an automatic “anti”, if it did then the majority of the global population would be anti-Mormon. My real concern with the label is that the purpose of it is to discredit. You mention that a common claim made against the faithfull is that they are automatons. You know as well as I do that this is a highly overgeneralized stereotype that is hardly reflective of the majority of the Church base. The corallary claim made against the “anti” is that they are angry and mean spirited and cannot have a reasonable conversation because they will always resort to name calling, or something along those lines.

The problem with the labels is that they only serve to taint our perceptions towards to slant of the speaker/author. When someone is called a Mormon the idea conveyed is that of the persons religious orientation. At this point in time I think it does no more than that. To call someone a “TBM”, or a “cult” member, is to qualify that religious orientation unfavorably. The same thing goes with “anti-Mormon”, which usually conveys that this person has an unreasonable bent against Mormonism, where as Church “critic” certainly would convey a persons orientation regarding Mormonism, it does not try and qualify it is good or bad.

Finally, I think the labeling of “anti-Mormons” is much more difficult than Mormons who are affiliated with an actual organization that is mostly self defined. The only common thread of Anti-Mormons is that they, at varying levels, disagree with the Church. This label is often applied accross the board from Ed Decker, or Schroeder, to Grant Palmer, to Fawn Brodie, to even benign productions like the PBS, The Mormons, presentation. Anything that we would like to discredit we call anti-Mormon. So, in short, I am just advocating that we be cautious about our motivations behind the labels we use. If we are confident of our position (either way), and our ultimate purpose is the pursuit of truth, reasonably debating this issues without trying to score points through labels, should appeal to both parties.

You said: “This group has been classified not for what they believe, where their allegiences (sic) lie, or what group they are apart of, but for what they are not – Mormons.”

Personally, I disagree with this statement. I have never called anyone who is not of my faith an anti-Mormon simply for that fact. It is the result of a demonstrated behavior. Anyone, Mormon or not, who opposes the church, its teachings, and its leaders, is “anti-Mormon” in my book.

Obviously, there are varying degrees of severity in that category. I don’t think anyone here is arguing that all who fall under the anti- category are automatons (Although, ironically, that claim is frequently made about the faithful…)

For what it’s worth, Mr. Paxton appears to meet my criteria of an anti- based upon his posts to this message board. That is not a commentary on his personal worth, or on the quality of his posts. It merely indicates that he has chosen to take a position against the church, and is willing to speak out.

It’s surprising that you don’t recognize the weakness of Schroeder’s writing due to his “horseshoes and hand grenades” accuracy.

For a writer, credibility is everything. How can we be expected to trust a word he says when there is such a blatant lack of research and devotion to the subject matter?

What if your Doctor came in to talk to you after some lab work, and said: “Well, Mr. P@xton, I’m afraid you’ve got cancer.”

You reply: “What?! Cancer? I came in here because of a runny nose!”

The Doctor then says: “Hmm. Let me check this chart again. Oh! Hehehe. My bad! I meant to say you have a COLD! Well, they both start with a C, right? And they’re both illnesses with no known cure, so I was right in a BROAD sense, wasn’t I?”

You’d first punch that Doctor in the face, and then never trust another word out of his mouth.

The devil is in the details, Mr. Paxton (ironic, considering Who is the driving force behind all of this misinformation…) You claim to not want to be “lumped in” with the anti-Mormons, because you believe you do not meet certain criteria. Details. Perhaps it’s time you re-evaluated your stance on that issue.

First I have never seen, nor read this book, in fact prior to your post, I had never heard of the book. My response was based entirely on your critic of the book and any inferences I make come your original post. My response to your post was motivated to point out your use of a straw man argument whereby you try to discredit books that dare offer a view contrary to official LDS propaganda. But silly me, why should I care since we all know that the church ALWAYS tells the truth with regard to its history … there really was no need on my part.
I agree with you that Schroeder did a shoddy job on getting his facts straight (based on the information that you claim are in the book)…and it appears that he missed a lot of the fine details…but his what he missed in details he got right in broad terms.

With respect to his distortions showing a church that it is almost unrecognizable by faithful Latter-day Saints– Isn’t it ironic that the real unsanitized Mormon Church history…the one that isn’t taught in Sunday School- would also be unrecognizable to faithful Latter-day Saints.
You say that I claimed that William Hamblin was involved in acts of violence.
Actually it was Bill Hickman I referred to…who confessed that he committed horrific crimes on Brigham Young’s orders. Since the federal government was aware of these confessions yet failed to prosecute Brigham Young…who really knows if the accusations were credible or not…in my comments I was careful to state that Bill Hickman claimed to have killed many an apostate who dared to leave or question Young’s unquestionable authority over the people of early Utah…I didn’t state it as fact.
But seriously Bro Danderson…I sincerely take issue with you wanting to group me in some stereotypical LDS apologist pigeonhole by lumping me in your neat and tidy “anti-Mormon” box. I know that makes it easier to dismiss me, but come on…move on please. I am neither anti-Mormon nor for that matter anti anything. I would prefer to be referred to as a member of the Loyal Opposition…I have simply read the same information that you have and have honestly come to a different conclusion than you. After all we don’t refer to the Republican Party as being Anti-Democrats or to Muslins as anti-Christians…Why can’t I just be a former Mormon who has come to the conclusion that the LDS Church is not what it claims to be…after becoming more fully informed. Lose the “Anti” already. By referring to those you have a different perspective on Mormonism as “one of your number” or by grouping those who have a different conclusion as “you anti-Mormons” does not promote understanding, communication or points of common agreement.
I know I know it just make it easier for you to lump anyone who disagrees with some of your conclusions together…I get it…but reality is never so simple. Loyal Opposition works for me.

1. Mr. Schroeder’s book is in the library of a regionally accredited four-year college. It is a reference book–supposedly for readers to use as a gateway for further research. Hence, it is not only indicative of anti-Mormon “scholarship,” it is meant to be a standard. One would think that if the book is intended to be a “go to” research tool, the author would at least take the time and effort to get his facts straight.

2. Mr. Paxton makes much of Mr. Schroeder getting the gyst right. Yes, there are some things that he got right–enough to give the reader only a distorted portrait of Mormonism; one that is only the most bizarre and sinister.

But then, that was my point. Getting some things right isn’t enough–especially when the entire picture is so distorted, that it is almost unrecognisable by faithful Latter-day Saints–and dark enough to incite non-members to less savory acts against the Church and its members.

3. Much is made by the anti-Mormon community that Latter-day Saints supposedly worship a Jesus Christ entirely separate and distinct from the biblical One–even though there are only a few character trait differences–and no conflicting ones! I find it quite hypocritical that a member of that same community would become angry when a Latter-day Saint would point out that another anti-Mormon is discussing a demonstrably separate and distinct person from Joseph Smith. Joseph F. Smith is no more Joseph Smith than Clark Danderson [http://www.life.uiuc.edu/plantbio/People/Students/Danderson.htm] is Steven Danderson–even though both Clark and I have graduate degrees, and we both teach at the university level.

Clark is NOT me; he is my nephew. Similarly, Joseph F. Smith is NOT the Prophet Joseph Smith, Junior, the first President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Joseph F. Smith is the Prophet Joseph Smith’s nephew.

4. Mr. Paxton claims that William Hamblin (I so dislike it when anti-Mormons try to invoke an air of friendship; it strikes me as quite phony–especially when that air is accompanied by demonstrable untruths!) was involved in acts of violence. Since Mr. Paxton made the charge, HE bears the burden of proving that charge–NOT the Latter-day Saints! Otherwise, he is just a person bringing railing accusations against his enemies–not unlike another person with whom I’m acquainted.

5. Mr. Paxton, if one of your number does shoddy research about the Latter-day Saints, don’t blame the Latter-day Saints! Rather blame your compatriot; HE is the one who is casting your group in a bad light!

Not too long ago, FAIR came down hard on a Latter-day Saint who used faulty scholarship in defence of the Book of Mormon [http://www.fairblog.org/2008/07/03/a-faulty-apologetic-for-the-book-of-mormon/]. That is because such sloppy work makes the LDS position WEAKER. Mr. Paxton, if you want us to take your arguments seriously, you anti-Mormons ought to get on the case of those who get the facts wrong, and make sure they (and you!) get them RIGHT!

It is only “FAIR”!

01. Smith “claimed” that he received visitations
02. The BoM trumps the Bible.
03. Mormon’s did engage in glossolalia.
04. Smith had multiple wives
05. The modern church has rejected many Youngisms
06. Exiting Mormonism was once very bureaucratic.(some think it still is)

But Danderson didn’t post his comments to poke fun at Schroeders lousy scholership…he did it to disaparage ALL material that does not support his view of Mormonism…Schreoders book was merely a convenient foil to achieve his goal.

HUH???

Typical LDS “Straw man” argument…using Schroeder’s book to paint so called “anti-Mormon” books as being “typical” implying that “anti-Mormon books all use less than credible scholarship. You’ve taken one bizarre case of bad scholarship to discredit any book that doesn’t support YOUR view of Mormon claims. Do you really think that we are all so ignorant as to fall for this?

But even admitting that Schroeder got some of the small details wrong…what about the general claims of his argument? Let’s take a closer look at the claims made in Schroeder’s book that you seem to suggest cast a bad light on Mormonism.

You point out that Schroeder claimed that the Church was founded by Joseph F. Smith, who, in 1827, ”claimed to have received visionary inspiration from the ancient prophet, Mormon”

But truth is that a man named Joseph Smith did in fact “claim” that he received visitations from heavenly beings. Schroeder’s basic claim stands.

You say that Mr. Schroeder informs the hapless reader that the Book of Mormon “was intended either to replace the Bible or to be accepted as a bona fide part of Christian scripture.”

Again perhaps Schroeder got the details wrong but didn’t Joseph Smith claim that the Book of Mormon was “the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion”? I think it’s fair to infer from this statement alone that Mormons place the Book of Mormon in a more credible light than they do the Bible. Once again Schroeder got it right.

You then claim that it gets worse because Schroeder had the audacity to point out that early Mormon’s espoused the practice of glossolalia or “speaking in tongues”. But again Schroeder got it right. Early church members (including Smith) did in fact claim to be able to speak in tongues.

There are many examples in the history of the church but I’ll only share one as an example.

CH P322 (Joseph Smith speaks in tongues, entire church services delivered in tongues): The gifts which follow them that believe and obey the Gospel, as tokens that the Lord is ever the same in His dealings with the humble lovers and followers of truth, began to be poured out among us, as in ancient days:-for as we, viz.: Joseph Smith, Jun., Sidney Rigdon, Frederick G. Williams, Newel K. Whitney, Hyrum Smith, Zebedee Coltrin, Joseph Smith, Sen., Samuel H. Smith, John Murdock, Lyman E. Johnson, Orson Hyde, Ezra Thayer, High Priests; and Levi Hancock, and William Smith, Elders, were assembled in conference , on the 22nd day of January, I spoke to the conference in another tongue, and was followed in the same gift by Brother Zebedee Coltrin, and he by Brother William Smith, after which the Lord poured out His Spirit in a miraculous manner, until all the Elders spake in tongues, and several members, both male and female, exercised the same gift. Great and glorious were the divine manifestations of the Holy Spirit. Praises were sung to God and the Lamb; speaking and praying, all in tongues, occupied the conference until a late hour at night, so rejoiced were we at the return of these long absent blessings. On the 23rd of January, we again assembled in conference; when, after much speaking, singing, praying, and praising God, all in tongues, we proceeded to the washing of feet (according to the practice recorded in the 13th chapter of John’s Gospel) as commanded of the Lord.

Once again Schroeder actually got it right.

You point out another Schroeder error by showing that Joseph Smith only “enjoyed” 33 wives rather than 80. So I’m assuming that you take issue with the number of claimed wives rather than whether or not Smith “enjoyed” them. But once again the basic premise of Schroeder’s claim stands…Joseph Smith did have many wives. I guess it was kind of Schroeder not to point out that several of those wives were also married to other men when Smith also married them.

You correctly point out that Schroeder was wrong when he claimed that the LDS church “adopted” Joseph Smith’s son as leader but once again he did get it right when he states that the LDS church HAS “rejected most of Young’s non-Christian doctrinal innovations.” Ever heard of Adam-God, blacks holding the priesthood or communal living? All espoused by Young yet now rejected by the mainstream church.

With respect to Schroeder’s implication of sinister violence leveled at those who dare to withdraw themselves from the church…I guess you are unaware of the violence leveled towards those who dared leave after the 1847 migration to Utah. Bill Hickman claimed to have killed many an apostate who dared to leave or question Young’s unquestionable authority over the people of early Utah.

And as for modern days…I think it’s important to point out that up until 1989 the LDS church did not accept resignation as a means to leave the authority of the Mormon Church. That all changed in 1989 with the Gunn case in Oklahoma. Gunn established case law, pointing out that we as individuals have always had the right to both join and resign any church memberships without being subject to the punitive authority of the religious organization that we wish to resign from. Prior to this, the ONLY way someone exited Mormonism was either through death or excommunication. Again Schroeder got it right.

Clearly what is irksome is you’re trying to disparage books that do not conform to your understanding of Mormonism by using the mistakes in Schroeder’s book as your straw man. And the fact remains that although Schroeder got several details wrong…clearly his basic premise that Mormonism is cult-like…remains. At least to those who have experienced it from both the inside and the outside.

No I don’t, so let’s try it.

Morgan:

You have proven your point, I am a raving anti-Mormon who cannot resist the unprovoked urge to get my digs in. I think that about brings this cage match to a close, Cowboy defeated by the impact of irony.

Are you gonna stick around and try the Pepsi-Vernor with Me, Nick and Steven?

Why don’t you join Cowboy, Nick, and me for some Vernor’s?

Cowboy, do you think it would be a good idea to mix Vernor’s with Pepsi?

I really would like to move on, but I feel its important to point out the bitterness that many anti mormons come with to the discussion. I wished him luck, thanked him for his time, agreed to disagree and again wished him well. But again and again Cowboy feels the need for one more dig, sarcastic statment, or “joke”. If he felt the need for the last word he could do so without the sardonic replies. Maybe he could say: I don’t like you or your tactics, or the way you present yourself, but good luck and good bye. But that would be against the anti mormon M.O. And yes, it still proves my original point. (Notice how I can do that without bitterness, sarcasm or anger) If Cowboy could refrain from one more “dig” I would be happy to part ways. But I will continue to identify posts that prove my point.

I’m a Captain Morgan kind of guy, and I’ve already broken open a figurative bottle at the sheer lunacy of this exchange. Cheers.

Vernor’s with Half & Half?

What does it taste like? Ginger ale shake?

And here you are. Trying to hide behind sarcasm or flippance does not disquise the motive behind your statements- which was my point in the first place. I am sorry my post caused a negative reaction in you. But from my extensive experience with various blogs, anti mormons, critics of the Church, and other threads you have commented on, you would have found something to rail against with or without my “flippant” post. (Like some of the other people commenting here)

I am still enjoying the irony. But I feel we can agree to disagree and move on. Have a nice life.

Even enemies are potential allies!

Several Evangelical anti-Mormons were impressed that Church members would take the point on this issue.

They may still disagree, but most are more circumspect!

Really, I understand Mr. Literski’s passion; we need more of it!

However, I would also prefer that it be accompanied by clear-thinking.

Since it seems, appropriate, I like Joseph Smith’s reply to WW Phelps:

Come on, Dear Brother, since the war is past,
For friends at first are friends again at last.

Nick, how about a root beer after the Prop 8 California Steel Cage Match?

Where did I overgeneralize Mormons? I clearly acknowledged that that both groups have a tendency to use the worst examples to marginalize one another. I agree with the author of this post that Schroeders book is a poor argument against Mormonism, but so what. There are legitimate arguments which are more deserving of being addressed.

One could easily try and marginalize Mormons by setting Paul H. Dunn as the standard of credibility. Yet to do so one would also have to find some way to discount challenging contributions from Hugh Nibley to Mormon intellectualism that oponents must compete with. That is why I argue that we are better off to deal with issues that have merit as opposed to this.

Off the cuff I decided to flippantly respond to your “experiment” with what you were hoping for. I do not believe in any kind of “true but sarcastic” way what I said. Nor do I believe that your flippant comment was some type of a social experiment to see if “those who are inclined to react negatively” would defy supposed precedent, and move on.

Angry? I get a case of the giggles when something is as bad as the piece you describe, when the author is too stoopid even to crib from Wikipedia!

I agree. Anger is rarely the appropriate response; amusement often is. (In some cases, amusement may even give way to mirth!)

Truthfully, I think we “Mormons” should be thankful for anti-Mormons. Not only do they keep us on our toes; they also generate interest in the Church (unintentionally, of course). Wonderful gospel discussions can result when someone asks, Is it true what they say about you Mormons?

False accusations against the LDS Church do far less damage than bad behavior by Church members. And bad behavior, in my opinion, includes responding with anger to what we perceive as unfair criticism.

There was no sarcasm in my response however, because I knew-from reading this and many other blogs- that there is always at least one person that reacts the way you “sarcastically” did. I simply wished to pre empt that inevitablity but ended up causing it. (adding another layer of irony where my actions to prevent a future event end up causing it) I’m glad you don’t think we are brainwashed, but your subsequent posts that condemn the overgeneralization of anti mormons even as you over generalize Mormon positions based on my response reeks of yet more irony and still proves my original post: somebody would respond with anger or sarcasm at a fairly innocuous blog post and then make a statement about how typical Mormon’s “compartmentalize the worst examples” and other nonsense.(thats better than lying, brainwashed, and sinister, but has the same sentiment behind it and was exactly what I said would happen)

I made the statement I did based on my personel experience with many critics in a variety of settings, hence I had plenty of perspective and no need to “project”. I was still hoping to be proven wrong, and that maybe the people who were inclined to react negatively would choose to move on (or ignore me), but somebody chose to prove me right.

Yet more ironic is the fact that I was trying not to get involved in one of these games. But every time I talk to an anti mormon it becomes a game of- “I know you are but what am I?”- where we eventually end up accusing each other of doing the same thing to the other one. It only took two volleys to get there this time, but it’s still lame.

Good luck all, and thanks for your time. Great post Steve and keep up the good work.

As a point of order, it should be noted that the Strangites are properly named “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”; our hyphenated usage was a reaction to their punctuation. The author apparently wasn’t even interested enough to learn the distinctions between the different restoration movements, and kind of souped them all together.

And we should always remember the passion early LDS had for speaking in tongues (or “Glassolalia”); it was a very real gift of the spirit often manifest in LDS services (and especially the dedication of the Kirtland Temple). It was only towards the end of the 19th century that the practice fell out of favor with LDS culture, and it has since been lost to the ages. The author appears to be accurate in that regard.

Ultimately, I’m undecided on whether I’d like anti-Mormons to be more accurate or less accurate in their descriptions of the Church. At least there is some entertainment to be had when they get it so wrong.

For what it is worth, the type of arguments against Mormonism favored in Schroeders book (as represented by Steve Danderson, I have not read the book), is the best type of criticism for the Church. It is in obvious error, and any mildly educated person on Mormonism will spot the flagrant ignorance to the facts from a mile away. The books, and by extension the authors and the arguments, will lose all credibility on the subject.

Part of the reason for my sarcasm was that there seems invariably to be a comment on most topics where someone will attempt to predict the response from their flawed perspective on Church antagonists. It seems they would like to pick the most ridiculous examples of “anti-Mormons” and use them as a framework for characterizing and compartmentalizing the entire community. The irony is, that you projected the same attitude on the opposition with your comment by suggesting that all “anti-Mormons” have the same ridiculous prejudices against the “faithful”. They all think that Mormons are brainwashed, lying drones.

I tend to think that the best way of dealing with the competing communities is to address the best points from either side. The reality is we each have examples within the respective communities, across all spectrums, which if taken as the standard would make the communities look rather ridiculous. Think Paul H. Dunn vs. Hughe Nibley. If Mr. Dunn was the standard then yes, Mormons are dishonest. On the other hand if Hugh Nibley were the standard then the Church has a lot more credibility.

Don’t shoot our potential allies Steve.