Define 'anti' please!!!!

[miss taken]

This has come up a couple of times on the threads
i.e. the use of the word 'anti' as it applies to post or ex mormons.

Could someone please explain the way they percieve this word as I relate it to anti-christ, but don't quite know what people mean by 'anti-mormon'???

Thanks
Mary

[peter_mary]

This has come up a couple of times on the threads
i.e. the use of the word 'anti' as it applies to post or ex mormons.

Could someone please explain the way they percieve this word as I relate it to anti-christ, but don't quite know what people mean by 'anti-mormon'???

Thanks
Mary

This is probably a complex question, and worth exploring. Never being short of opinion, I'll try my hand! :rolleyes:

In the English lexicon, "anti" means "in opposition to," or "opposed to." It sometimes means two entities are about the same business, but in oposite directions. Hence, Christ and the AntiChrist are both about the business of the salvation of the masses, Christ being for it, and the antiChrist being opposed to it.

In the Mormon lexicon, anti is more complicated (not even considering the bizzare useage of the word in at least a couple of classically Mormon instances, such as the Anti-Nephi-Lehies and the Kirtland Anti-Banking Society...those are outside the bounds of any logical explaination of the word "anti"....)

Mormons tend to generalize the concept of anti-Mormon to "anything that does not overtly support the Church and it's teachings." Therefore, alcohol and tobacco are "anti-Mormon" even though they are inanimate substances without motive or activity. Hollywood is sometimes perceived as anti-Mormon because it fails to support good family values. Yes, I have in fact heard well-meaning members utter the words that "R-rated movies are anti-Mormon." I also heard my dear father-in-law one time exclaim relief for the number of movies such as "The Work and the Glory," "The Book of Mormon Movie," "The Best Two Years," "Singles Ward" etc. because "at last we'll be able to see some movies that aren't anti-Mormon." That's a quote, not a reiteration of a concept...

Anyone who speaks out against Church policies is anti-Mormon, regardless of the issue. For instance, our local Newspaper recently reported on a pedophile case in which the perpetrator was a Mormon who had been molesting children for years at a Church sponsored Boy Scout Camp and while on his mission. When the paper exposed the case, they were labeled "anti-Mormon," because the story caused the church and the Boy Scouts to have to account for their actions. Interestingly, last week the paper ran a three-day front-page story concerning the growth, struggles and triumphs of the Church in Mexico, something that could have been lifted right from The Church News, but no one said, "Oh, now the paper is pro-Mormon...."

The reason Church discipline is often imposed on people who speak out against Church policy, history or activity is because their actions are perceived to be "in opposition to the Brethren" or "disloyal" and therefore anti-Mormon. You don't get to be both anti-Mormon and Mormon at the same time, and so if you don't renounce your opposition, then you have to go.

Ultimately, the Church demands loyalty of it's members, and frankly would like, if not loyalty, at least respect from those who are not members. A quick review of the temple recommend questions will reveal that loyalty to the Brethren and the institution of the Church is far more important than the quality of your character. To question, challenge or disagree with the Brethren or the institution of the Church is to stand in opposition, and therefore places you in an "anti-Mormon" stance. Worse, the mentality that if "you are not for us, you are against us," leaves us with one of two options...we are either loyal members or deferring non-members, OR we are enemies of the Church. Enemy of the Church, anti-Mormon and Apostate all go hand-in-hand in the Mormon lexicon.

Interestingly, my understanding and experience has been that the Church and its members have a MUCH higher degree of tolerance for members who have disparate doctrinal views, but NO tolerance for people who have loyalty issues. The message seems to be, "Disavow Jesus or the Bible if you must, but don't you dare question the Brethren." That means that it's okay if you don't pray, don't read your scriptures, don't go to Church...then you're just "inactive." But if you challenge the Brethren, now you've crossed the apostate line. You are now officially "anti-Mormon." Like it or not...

At least that's how it seems to me.

Paul

[miss taken]

Thanks Paul.

I wonder what makes you more or less 'anti'? For instance if you disagree, but keep quiet about it, which is what I have done for 10 years then was I anti from the start, or am I more 'anti' now, because I write on this thread. Or am I not really anti at all, because maybe you have to write books to be 'anti' aka The Tanners and Fawn Brodie. Maybe you have to be proactive to be anti - ie. actively trying to discourage people from being mormon (which is something that I wouldn't do).. The mind boggles. Is Van Wagoner anti because he wrote a book which highlighted some of the seedier parts of LDS history which most mormons were unaware of (certainly non'utah converts like me). Has he been ex'd for writing that book?

I know some of the scholars have, I just wondered about him?


Mary

[Born Free]

This has come up a couple of times on the threads
i.e. the use of the word 'anti' as it applies to post or ex mormons.

Could someone please explain the way they percieve this word as I relate it to anti-christ, but don't quite know what people mean by 'anti-mormon'???

Thanks
Mary
Mary,
IMO "anti' sits in several contexts.

The starting point is to try to get some take on how Mormons see it.

They are encouraged to see Moism as some sort of monolithic God-inspired chunk of perfection. From that paradigm, anyone who has any criticism of any element of the monolith, is seen as 'anti-Mo'.

This is not an insignificant problem, particularly if you have a brain preference and level of intelligence which enables you to see and appreciate complexity, and not get too phased, if it has some/many incongruous bits. If that is you, you can appreciate the good/healthy/viable and set about weeding out the problematic, provided the base is solid. For most Mos, that is not an option.

Hence many Mos, particulary those who have not got too many neurons lined up in a row, perceive anything, repeat ANYTHING, that suggests Moism has a few glitches, as being rabidly anti-Mo. This mindset is what enables someone to bundle Mein Kampf and Sunstone into one for example. Black or white, good or evil, Mo or anti-Mo; all simple binary constructs.

So to my mind ex-Mo and post-Mo are to varying degress refusing to play that binary game. I like the idea that post-Mo acknowledges that the binary mindset is part of the problem that feeds Moism, so refuses to start from that paradigm.

I am sure that many people who discover Mos lies and laundering, feel deeply outraged after having been promised something whiter than driven snow. In that early confused, angry stage, it could be argued they are more likely to being thinking binary - I was Mo; I am now not Mo; so I might be anti-Mo. I personally do not think it any accident that some of the rabid anti-Mos discover fundamental Christianity, because it works out of a similar binary mindset as Mormonism.

I believe that to the degree that a person has transcended that binary mindset, they are open to the possibility that Moism is just part of a bigger picture, more evolved than some, but less evolved than others. Rather than it being the pinnacle of human development, it is in fact quite early stage development.

THat leaves open the question of how I might respond to Moisms duplicity, whilst at the same time, respecting that for some people, it offers a step forward in their growth.

I have a problems with:

A religion that is ultra-conservative on sexuality and homosexuality, but was founded by a man with a serious sexual addition, which did not baulk at hebaphilia.

A religion that speaks of a PH of love, but with regularity fails to deal adequately with abuse, and in particular sexual abuse.

A religion that speaks of conscience and love of wisdon and learning, but launders and actively suppresses its history.

So for me Mo/anti-Mo is part of a binary mindset, which is part of the Mo problem or limitation or artificial ceiling.

Daryl

[peter_mary]

I wonder what makes you more or less 'anti'? For instance if you disagree, but keep quiet about it, which is what I have done for 10 years then was I anti from the start, or am I more 'anti' now, because I write on this thread. Or am I not really anti at all, because maybe you have to write books to be 'anti' aka The Tanners and Fawn Brodie.

Mary

I guess whether YOU are anti-Mormon or not is not so much a question of objective reality so much as a question of where you are standing when you ask the question, "Am I anti-Mormon?"

A faithful member of the Church might very well perceive you as anti-Mormon because you are an active participant in this heathen enterprise called PostMormon.org. :D You think, you write, you challenge, and you do it in a public forum. So from where THEY stand, asking that question, the answer could very well be "Yes."

But what about where YOU stand? My guess, and it can only BE a guess, because I'm standing in a different place than you are, but my GUESS is that you would not answer that question in the affirmative. You probably do not see yourself acting in "opposition" to the Church and it's authorities, but more likely you see yourself evolving in a direction that doesn't even include them anymore. You might see yourself as speaking about the Church in terms of your own past experience, talking about it in terms of how you have grown up in the context of the Church, but you're objective is not to tear down the institution, merely understand your own life in the evolving context that includes the Church in your past, and something else in your future. So from where I stand, and possibly where you stand, you are not anti-Mormon at all.

The older I get, the fewer objective standards I see, and this is certainly a case of "it depends."

Paul

[free thinker]

They give you this
but you pay for that
And once your gone
you can never come back
when your out of the blue
and into the black.

I love those words by Neil Young!

Somehow it feels like they fit here!! :cool:
In the church I really paid for something different than I got! I am not anti-mormon. I am post- mormon! I look forward and back! I like most of the view both ways.

Free Thinker

[miss taken]

I guess whether YOU are anti-Mormon or not is not so much a question of objective reality so much as a question of where you are standing when you ask the question, "Am I anti-Mormon?"

A faithful member of the Church might very well perceive you as anti-Mormon because you are an active participant in this heathen enterprise called PostMormon.org. :D You think, you write, you challenge, and you do it in a public forum. So from where THEY stand, asking that question, the answer could very well be "Yes."

But what about where YOU stand? My guess, and it can only BE a guess, because I'm standing in a different place than you are, but my GUESS is that you would not answer that question in the affirmative. You probably do not see yourself acting in "opposition" to the Church and it's authorities, but more likely you see yourself evolving in a direction that doesn't even include them anymore. You might see yourself as speaking about the Church in terms of your own past experience, talking about it in terms of how you have grown up in the context of the Church, but you're objective is not to tear down the institution, merely understand your own life in the evolving context that includes the Church in your past, and something else in your future. So from where I stand, and possibly where you stand, you are not anti-Mormon at all.

The older I get, the fewer objective standards I see, and this is certainly a case of "it depends."

Paul

I like this Paul, plus what free thinker says about liking the view both forwards and back. There was much positive in my experience in the church as well as negative. Sometimes I think I can have a tendency to remember only the 'bad', and I have to remind myself that there was a lot of good there too
Mary

[darkslider]

I hate the term "Anti-Mormon". It is insulting and a bastardization of humanity.

Whenever I post truth on a forum, I regularly receive comments from Latter-day Saints who feel my motives are less than sincere and label me with the dubious title of "anti-Mormon." Rarely does a week go by that I do not receive an e-mail or a PM from a Latter-day Saint who claims I am motivated by hatred and bigotry. No matter how hard I might try to present my message in a neutral manner, some will never concede that my intentions are based on a genuine concern for the LDS individual. Perhaps these people could learn a lesson from Brigham Young. In 1859 he taught:

"If I should hear a man advocate the erroneous principles he had imbibed through education, and oppose those principles, some might imagine that I was opposed to that man, when in fact I am only opposed to every evil and erroneous principles he advances" (Journal of Discourses 7:191).

President Young seemed to understand the difference between personal animosity and intellectual dialogue.

My goal is not to be antagonistic (though I often am, something I am working on and need to continue working on). I must be firm in my convictions but compassionate and patient (another thing I need to work on) as well. (I know that with some/most Mormons this is especially hard to do.) It is true that, just as some Mormons want nothing more than to ridicule and insult those with whom they disagree, some Christians have done the same. This is wrong and always will be wrong.

What about those LDS who claim that I should do something more productive with my resources, such as make a stand for my own faith? Don't I have love and compassion for Mormons? If so, the argument goes, I should leave them alone. It is very clear in the Bible, however, that love and compassion can be shown through the role of apologetics in the Christian life. This is why Peter writes,

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: having a good conscience;" (1 Peter 3:15-16a)

There are three things that should be noticed about this passage. First, we are commanded to give answers to the nonbeliever. The word "answer" comes from the Greek "apologeia." This is where we get the word "apologetics," which is the branch of theology concerned with the defense or proof of Christianity. Although it is important to have a good understanding of the basic foundational truths of the Bible, Peter was not saying that we need to be walking encyclopedias with all of the information on Christianity and the Bible always at the tips of our tongues. We are blessed in this Information Age with many great resources, including the Internet, that any Christian who is willing to look for applicable information can find it.

Second, Peter says that we should do this with "meekness and fear." (The NIV translates these words as "gentleness and respect.") It is my priority to let the Mormon know that we value him or her as a real person. There is no room for thinking that I am better than the Latter-day Saint, and while I oftentimes will be quite straight-forward in my personal responses, I never intend to talk down to Mormons or insult them or their faith in any way.

Finally, Peter says that we should have a good, or clear, conscience. I am continually checking my motives and determining if what I am doing is for the betterment of the ministry of Christ or if something would merely be of the flesh. Admittedly, some of the responses I receive take potshots at me personally and my motives; this sometimes hurts, but I have to remind myself that Peter knew Christians would be the objects of verbal and behind-our-back attacks. Consider verses 16-17 of this same passage:

"that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing" (16b-17)

When compared to the treatment many of our Christian brothers and sisters receive in countries that are violently hostile to Christianity, I have a long way to go before I reach the suffering stage spoken of in this passage. Despite having false accusations made against me with my motives being judged (i.e. I hate Mormons, want to get rich, are employed by Satan, etc.), I know that my motivation is pure. I desire to see Mormons come to a saving relationship with the true Jesus of the Bible while informing the Christian Church that, despite the clean-cut family image that the LDS Church portrays, Mormonism is not Christianity.

For Mormons who doubt my motivation, I ask how they would like it if I accused their missionary force of the same things I am accused of. How do you think Mormons would respond if I declared that the only reason missionaries knock on people's doors is because they are hateful, bigoted people who have nothing better to do than to question people about their beliefs? Why don't they just go home and practice their religion without bothering other people instead of spending two years of their life venting hatred? Does this sound ludicrous? Of course it does.

A story was related to me the other day that, I feel, shows this in rather stark manner.

"Bill (name changed for privacy) told me of a time when he was listening to a Christian girl defend her faith on the streets of Manti. Standing next to three Mormon men, he heard one say to his friends, "She's an anti-Mormon." Seeing an opportunity to engage in a dialogue Bill turned to the three young men and asked, "Just what is an anti-Mormon?" Not getting an immediate response he then asked, "Do you mean that any Christian who shares his faith with a Latter-day Saint is an anti-Mormon?" Still no response. Proceeding further he asked, "If a Christian is an 'anti-Mormon' for sharing his faith with a Mormon, am I to assume that when a Mormon shares his faith with a Christian he is an anti-Christian? Am I to assume that when the Mormon missionary comes to the door of a Christian they too must be anti-Christians?" To this they all disagreed. "Wait a minute," Bill said, "A Christian is labeled an 'anti-Mormon' for sharing what they believe to be true with Latter-day Saints, but Latter-day Saints are not anti-Christian for sharing what they believe to be true with Christians." "My friends," he said, "this is not consistent." "

While I strongly disagree with the message Mormons bring, I have never questioned the fact that, for the most part, most Latter-day Saints sincerely desire to share what they believe is true with those outside of their church. Unless I could present evidence to show that the motives of the Mormon were less than honorable, I would have no right to cast doubt on their sincerity. So too, unless the Mormon has evidence showing how my motives are wrong, he has no right to question my sincere desire to share what I believe to be true. The problem with many Mormons is that they incorrectly define disagreement as hatred.

The problem I have with the LDS missionary movement is the methods they are taught to employ, not their motives. It is a known fact that the average person who only has the vague missionary lessons to go by will be hard-pressed to adequately understand the implications of Mormon doctrine! While I defend the right of the Mormon missionaries (and all other Mormons) to share their faith, I find it unconscionable that they do not tell the prospective convert the whole story.

It is also important to note that my purpose and methods are fully supported by the Bible. If anything, I have probably been less blunt than my biblical examples. I have yet to see Mormons point to Jesus and say that He did not love the people of His time, despite the many instances where Jesus presented a message that the Jews felt contradicted their present system of reliance upon the law. Nowhere do I see the motives of Jesus being questioned when he called the religious people serpents, white-washed tombs, and sons of their father, the devil. Nowhere do I see Mormons pointing to Paul and saying that his methods were not correct, despite the many instances where Paul reasoned from the Scriptures with people-both Jew and Greek-who did not believe as he did (Acts 17:2-4, 17ff). In fact, nowhere do I see any biblical author propose that the Christian should accept any idea or worldview without thinking it through both logically and biblically.

This is the reason why Jesus, Paul, and Peter all used the Old Testament writings to support the role of Jesus' resurrection from the dead. This is also why we are clearly told to NOT pray for good feelings about a religion but to test everything (1 Thess. 5:21; 1 John 4:1). And this test that leads me to my faith being used, as Jude wrote, to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (vs. 3). This is all part of the role of "apologetics"- the defense of the Christian faith using facts and rational arguments.

The Christian must not forget that Mormons are people who are just as much in need of God's forgiveness as anyone else is. They are not the enemy. My goal is to win Latter-day Saints to truth. Therefore, my battle is "against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:12). While I may plead guilty to being against Mormonism, I are not at all against Mormons. To say I am anti-Mormon is both offensive and inaccurate.

I am not "anti-Mormon"! I am Pro-Truth!

[maleficent]

i compleatly disagree with the term "anti" as used by the church.

they use it in such a broad spectrum of situations that it has lost all meaning and credibility.

i was a mormon. i am no longer a mormon. there for i am labled anti mormon. i don't attend church, and i've learned a great many things since i left.

then why is it that i WAS a high school student. i am no longer a high school student. but i'm not labled "anti" high school? i don't attend high school, and i've learned a great many things since i graduated.

nowhere else is the prefix "anti" used in such an incorrect way.

[keene maverick]

I am anti-Mormon in that I am against the church (the organization, not the people).

Mormons are anti-Mormon in that they are against themselves.

[miss taken]

I know that I started this thread, but after giving it some more thought, I think I would argue that 'anti' is to try and destroy something or another's faith.

Since I have no desire to do that, and my purpose in posting to this site is to seek support and hopefully support others, as well as to look at new lines of enquiry which many of the threads bring up - I do not regard myself as 'anti' anything. Certainly not anti-mormon.

I have been reading Spong (thanks Free Thinker) and I do think that there is a lot of anger wrapped up and around religion. We are right - You are wrong, We are going to heaven - you are going to hell.

I don't think that will do really. It doesn't solve anything.
I am not superior or more enlightened than my fellow LDS active members because I have decided that I personally cannot except it as literal truth, though I agree for many that it is a good lifestyle and makes many people better, who can argue with that, I cannot personally with all honesty cling onto it.

So like Spong I am a part believer in exile. In exile from the LDS church view of God, and perhaps in exile from the OT and some of the NT view of God.

But I still believe in the divine, I believe in the ultimate force and power of love though I fail miserably to live up to it on many occassions. I still believe that there is something within me that is divine that guides and encourages me. I believe in life after life.

Mary