NOM

I was always counseled to stay away from anti-Mormon literature. In light of all the truth that has come out in recent years, what used to be anti is now fact. So, what anti literature is still out there?

2bizE wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:05 pm

I was always counseled to stay away from anti-Mormon literature. In light of all the truth that has come out in recent years, what used to be anti is now fact. So, what anti literature is still out there?

Among apologists, "anti-Mormon" has been redefined. Now it means "anything the church hasn't acknowledged as fact yet, or takes what it has acknowledged out of context." Here, "context" includes only the facts and interpretations that lead one to believe in Mormonism's claims to truth and authority.

Among everyone else, the definition hasn't changed at all. It still means "anything that is negative toward the church or doesn't recognize its awesomeness."

Curiously, the apologists' redefinition and rank-and-file's lack of redefinition manages to preserve the class of material considered to be anti-Mormon.

This is an ironic part of Elder Nelson's insistence on the nam of the church. Technically he is "anti-Mormon". This feels like a calculated distraction so that the institutiomal church can reestablish the accepted narratives allowed in the church.

Corsair wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 02, 2018 8:00 am

This is an ironic part of Elder Nelson's insistence on the nam of the church. Technically he is "anti-Mormon". This feels like a calculated distraction so that the institutiomal church can reestablish the accepted narratives allowed in the church.

Exactly. Anything from anyone other than the Church is "anti".

Reuben wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 02, 2018 6:52 am

Among everyone else, the definition hasn't changed at all. It still means "anything that is negative toward the church or doesn't recognize its awesomeness."

I have even heard people say they can't get friends or family members to read the essays because they consider them anti-Mormon. So, you're right, for some people anything that puts them in danger of thinking critically about any aspect of the church automatically bears the scarlet A, even if it comes FROM the church.

If it causes cognitive dissonance among believers, it is anti Mormon. Now, some TBMs are more knowledgeable about history, so what is fact for some is anti Mormon for others.

Reuben wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 02, 2018 6:52 am

Now it means "anything the church hasn't acknowledged as fact yet, or takes what it has acknowledged out of context." Here, "context" includes only the facts and interpretations that lead one to believe in Mormonism's claims to truth and authority.

Actually I think it has been the way you describe for quite some time.

Yep, as far as the church is concerned, any "problematic" facts are lies until the church is confronted with irrefutable evidence and then suddenly the facts are magically converted into proofs of church validity and opportunities to build faith.

I think elder Oaks gave a shining example of that when explaining the Mark Hoffman salamander letter.

Anecdotally, I remember being taught in Primary (early 1960's) that evil men had made up stories of Joseph being a treasure or gold digger in order to sully and discredit him. They were all lies.
I'm pretty sure if one had taken the approach that those stories were true, excommunication would have been swift and sure for speaking evil of the Lord's anointed.

Nowadays...???

"OF COURSE Joseph was a peepstoning gold digger! Everybody was back in those days and it was actually a good training ground for becoming a real true undeniably valid prophet of God. Aren't you glad he was a gold digger and doesn't it increase your faith!!"

The lord was just preparing Brother Joseph for what was to come!

Honestly: Anything that promotes logic, reason, skepticism, or actual reality is anti-mormon.

At least for us mid-lifers and older, the majority of the stuff we were told was "anti-mormon" is now published on LDS.org. The vast majority of true believers don't know that, but it's there.

The only thing I can think of from "my time" that I'd really call anti-mormon is bat-sh!t crazy stuff like "The Godmakers" where they literally do make sh!t up to make "mormons" look worse than they actually are.

I do think the nature of "anti-mormon" literature has changed, though. When I first came across the rather unsavoury information we all know about now, it was usually couched in evangelical terms, that their version of Christianity was so much better than the cult that was Mormonism. The Chick tracts, the lighthouse ministry stuff, it just wasn't particularly effective - it merely consigned Mormons to hell, and that was that. Even if the information was spot on.

I think given the nature of the information we have now, it's more like, "the church is very problematical as an entity because of its bigotry and corporatism," or you have historians pointing out what nonsense the early history is. The information is just there given the interwebs, and it's pretty easy to come to different conclusions about the data than the church does - that's the difference I can see now.