As I made a cursory examination of a lot of the anti-Mormon books in print, I noticed many common elements of their attacks on the LDS faith. I will discuss some of those commonalities below. As you read them, keep in mind the questions, “Which of these tactics are effective in steering others away from learning about the Mormons?” and “Could any of these things actually lead someone to be more curious about the LDS faith?” 
One of the most common themes I found was the “inside perspective” motif. This theme is embodied in the book “Mormon Missionaries: an inside look at their real message and methods” by Janis Hutchinson. Hutchinson claims to offer an insider view of the Mormons, being an ex-member. In doing so, she sets herself up as an authority on all things Mormon, even though at no point does she lay claim to any real authority or scholarship on the matter. She often declares certain doctrines and practices of the church to be wrong without offering a doctrinal basis.
In many other examples, authors took the icon of the Bible, a symbol of absolute truth for many, and tried to set the LDS church at odds with it. In “The Mormon Illusion: What the Bible says about the Latter-day Saints,” author Floyd C. McElveen begins by declaring that he regrets to inform the Mormons that they are wrong and that he is going to prove it to them with his knowledge of the Bible. He also fails to offer some form of reliable credential for undertaking the work. He claims it is his divine mandate to warn Mormons of their error, yet makes no effort to warn those of the countless other faiths that must be “wrong” according to his standards.
Finally, I noticed a newer branch of books with the intent of debunking LDS apologists who were debunking earlier claims laid against them. In “The new Mormon challenge: responding to the latest defenses of a fast-growing movement,” authors Francis Beckwith, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen declare that Mormon scholars were leaving them in the dust and that there was a need to keep up with the critique of the LDS church. Why? Why was there this need? The book claimed it was for continued debate and dialogue between the two faiths. But as far as this book is concerned, it was a one-sided attack, not the beginning of a conversation. This group at least made a claim of authority- all scholars of Protestant religious studies. They appealed to the logical side, the reasoning side of religion. They failed to suggest that readers confirm their research or seek heavenly help in making the decision- again, readers are to accept it, "because they said so."
Very few of these authors offer credentials or authority for attacking the LDS faith. Most were vague about which denomination they represented, preferring instead to declare themselves, “Christians.” All of them expressed their regard and sympathy for Mormons, masking the fact that they were, in fact, on the offensive. None of these groups suggested seeking out answers for oneself or for confirmation of the information they presented.
Are these tactics effective in dissuading people to learn more about the LDS faith?
Do we ever see examples of people in our church using these tactics to discredit other faiths?
Nice job. I'd like to invite you to join us over at the Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism. (www.spamlds.org) I think you'd enjoy the offerings there and be able to make a valuable contribution.
ReplyDelete"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so … righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad..." (2 Ne. 2: 11).
ReplyDeleteI think these tactics are effective in dissuading people to learn more about the church. For example, one of my best friends was taking the missionary discussions in high school. As he was studying and learning more about the church he went online and came across some anti-Mormon literature/ articles. He had a difficult time getting past all of the books and comments people were making, and he eventually stopped taking the discussions.
I think as a church we try our best to not attack any other beliefs, but rather focus on the joy within our own. However, there are cases that I can think of (ie crediting the Catholic church as "the great and abominable.")
ps how did spamlds.org get to comment on our blog? haha
I agree with Jenna on this one. The tactics that certain critics of our Church use are very persuasive. If they research some of the more controversial matters and blow some things out of proportion, it's easy to scare people away. I served my mission in Paris, and there was a time that the Church was in the final stages of purchasing land for a temple in the Versailles area; from what I heard (all of it was hear-say, I will admit) the landowner pulled out his offer at the last minute because of all of the negatives things he'd heard, read, and because of the pressure he'd received from others.
ReplyDeleteAlso on my mission, as I listened to different things missionaries would say when people confronted them, sometimes it really is hard to not put down other religions. It can be difficult to find a nice way to say that what someone else believes is wrong. But it's something that we are strongly urged to avoid, because we don't want to stoop to that level. So I would say that in general our church does a fairly good job to respecting others' beliefs, because we want them to respect ours.
I experienced anti-Mormon material in droves while serving my mission in Long Beach California. As a missionary, I actually thought it comical when people walked up to me and handed me their information. I graciously accepted their pamphlets...gave them a Finding Faith In Christ pass-along card, ask them if they were interested in hearing our message, and then went on our way. Actually...let me back up. Every time an encounter like this happened, it always ended in a prayer circle in the middle of the street with other neighbors, and the topic of the prayer was a plea that my "eyes might be open."
ReplyDeleteAnyone who served a mission has gone through this. Some more than others. I remember going to some of our investigators church. We would work something out with them like "you come with us, we will go to yours." There was one church in particular right in the center of Long Beach that REALLY shocked me. The church was called The Rock, and their "Sunday School" hour was spent teacher their members how to "bash" with the "Mormon Boys." Their tactics consisted of poorly twisting the truth to make our religion look and sound ridiculous. Thinking back to it, if I didn't know better, I would think that this LDS hating would drive me to find out for myself.
One of my favorite pamphlets that I received was called "The Visitors." The cover portrayed to RIPPED Elders standing at the door waiting for someone to open up. Once these two missionaries were inside, they began with small talk, and then worked into teaching a first. As soon as the Elders began talking about the doctrine, the owner of the home...a very wise Born-Again Christian...began to expound the "true doctrine" in such an amazing way that the Elders immediately began to question their religion. (The home owner kept throwing these anti-mormon facts at the missionaries.) In the end, the Elders decided not to keep preaching...started calling each other by their first names...and left promising each other that they would never go to church again.
At the very end of the booklet, there is a prayer which one reads which basically swears off Mormonism. "Dear God...I too reject Mormonism..." I loved this pamphlet so much that I got the cover blown up and made it into a poster.
In the end...to me...these tactics are flawed and are really doing very little damage at all. If anything I feel that they are only helping our cause by driving peoples curiosity to find out more. I mean lets be serious...do the protesters at General Conference make people realize the real truth and make them turn around and go home?
When Joseph Smith that "no unhallowed hand could stop the work from progressing..." I believe that these types of anti attacks were included in that statement.
A few years ago I read a non-fiction book called Princess, by Jean Sasson, and my eyes were opened to the atrocities that occur to women in the Middle East. What the bloggers omit is that the Islamic faith and the Middle Eastern culture are inseparably interwoven together. If an Islamic woman is on the streets and is not wearing her burqa she could be arrested. So I do not think that these stories attack Muslims or their religion because it is the culture as a whole that we analyzing. There is abuse of women in the Middle East and it is a patriarchal society. But I don’t think these books necessarily attack the Islamic faith. Things are wrong with the culture and the traditions which include the religion. But being from the West we do not understand the life of women in the East.
ReplyDeleteWestern civilization is certainly interested in hearing about these stories because the East is intriguing to us. Our culture is so much different than theirs. The Middle East is struggling to embrace and understand Western democracy because their culture is an ancient tradition. The West is also interested in these types of stories because we love a heroic story, especially of women, that speaks out about oppression and abuse.
Christina Nelson
I recently learned a lesson with the organization I do PR and advertising for that applies to this post. We have been worried about the criticism we were to receive from a very influential organization and some claims they were making that were completely false. After a lot of brainstorming we came up with a few good ideas to reach out to them, but nothing offered a full proof answer. We realized there is only so much we can do and we have to allow others to express their opinions (even if they are disagreeable). Then we have to let the audience decide. Hopefully, the audience has been educated properly to realize what sources are credible and which are not.
ReplyDeleteIt is the same thing with these anti-mormon books. I hope most people understand which sources are credible and which are not. I suppose the people that really want to know will figure it out and go straight to the source.
You may want to read my analysis of David Paulsen's review of The New Mormon Challenge. Your comments are very similar to his: appealing to the virtues of pluralism in order to insulate from criticism a faith, like mine, that seeks converts from other faiths. Nothing wrong with that, as I note in the article. Thus, we should just all admit that up front, stop trying to out-virtue each other, and then have an adult conversation.
ReplyDeleteHere's the reference for the article: Francis J. Beckwith, "Sects in the City: Mormonisn and the Philosophical Perils of Being a Missionary Faith." The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 9.2 (Summer 2005): 14-30.
You may get it online here: http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/Sects.pdf