mormonthink.com

For myself I’ve decided not to spend too much time on it. I’ve read plenty of peoples comment that “all you need is ten minutes and everything is out”. Maybe I’m a coward but I think I will wait and let time do some of that naturally for me. I don’t know if it’s anti or just intensely focused but like your friend was affected I see it as a huge contribution to peoples lack of faith.

I know some of the people behind it. The ones I am friends with are no longer believing Mormons, and several have been inactive or not practicing for quite some time, mostly due to these issues. All interpretation of history is biased, religious history even moreso. The church is biased. Apologists are biased. Anti-Mormons are biased. Each of us is biased. So is mormonthink. I wouldn’t quite call it Anti-Mormon, but it is biased from an unbelieving perspective.

As to site content, IMO, it doesn’t distinguish between what is speculative and what is sensationalistic. I do agree with some of the points on the site, but I disagree with others. IMO, it’s not a good “final word” on any of these issues, any more than apologists are. I like that it rebuts apologists because so many of the apologist arguments fail to persuade and only make people question more. I dislike that it uses a lot of examples from books like Mormon Origins and assumes the worst is true (as the church likes to assume the best is true) – and draws conclusions without considering that things are not always black & white or there is missing information on most historical things. It’s also difficult to understand history outside the context of the time and culture in which it took place. Consider Columbus, who has been viewed as both a hero and a villain. We probably all have an opinion on him, but are any of us right? Maybe not.

I understand the motivation behind the site. People are frustrated with white-washed history that is so obviously full of holes. But that doesn’t mean every “fact” or “conclusion” on the site is accurate. History is extremely complex. I question our ability to even get to the truth in many cases. The site should have less confidence in some of its conclusions. I’ve heard that the church is about to release a much more open and comprehensive view of our own history, partly due to the recent Joseph Smith Papers project. The rumor is that it will be peer-edited, which means non-LDS scholars will have reviewed it and edited for accuracy. Certainly that’s a positive step for those dissatisfied with the Truman Madsen version.

It might be worthwhile to discuss some of the content from mormonthink here for those who are looking for a way to stay.

I know some of the people behind it. The ones I am friends with are no longer believing Mormons, and several have been inactive or not practicing for quite some time, mostly due to these issues. All interpretation of history is biased, religious history even moreso. The church is biased. Apologists are biased. Anti-Mormons are biased. Each of us is biased. So is mormonthink. I wouldn’t quite call it Anti-Mormon, but it is biased from an unbelieving perspective.

That’s really a good way to put it, that it’s “biased from an unbelieving perspective.” I know that on another forum, an anti-Mormon asked me to provide some unbiased sources discussing the translation process for the Book of Mormon — like a history book, he said. 😆 Yeah, right.

As to site content, IMO, it doesn’t distinguish between what is speculative and what is sensationalistic. I do agree with some of the points on the site, but I disagree with others. IMO, it’s not a good “final word” on any of these issues, any more than apologists are. I like that it rebuts apologists because so many of the apologist arguments fail to persuade and only make people question more. I dislike that it uses a lot of examples from books like Mormon Origins and assumes the worst is true (as the church likes to assume the best is true) – and draws conclusions without considering that things are not always black & white or there is missing information on most historical things. It’s also difficult to understand history outside the context of the time and culture in which it took place. Consider Columbus, who has been viewed as both a hero and a villain. We probably all have an opinion on him, but are any of us right? Maybe not.

The thing that bugged me was that on their “Who are we?” page, they say, “About 25 Latter-day Saints have contributed substantially to the MormonThink website. The majority of those people are active, church-going members of the LDS Church. We have held positions ranging from Gospel Doctrine teachers, YW Presidents to Bishop. Some of us have written faith-promoting articles that have been published in the Ensign and other church publications. Most of us have served missions and almost all of us have been married in the temple. We’re just average everyday members that have a real interest in learning about accurate church history without all the sugarcoating that we often receive in Gospel Doctrine classes.” To me, that is off-the-charts disingenuous. The intent is to make people think that if these folks are telling you something, then it’s obviously true. The fact that they may still be showing up at Sacrament Meeting for whatever reason doesn’t prove anything. I just wish they’d be more honest and cut the crap.

I understand the motivation behind the site. People are frustrated with white-washed history that is so obviously full of holes. But that doesn’t mean every “fact” or “conclusion” on the site is accurate. History is extremely complex. I question our ability to even get to the truth in many cases. The site should have less confidence in some of its conclusions. I’ve heard that the church is about to release a much more open and comprehensive view of our own history, partly due to the recent Joseph Smith Papers project. The rumor is that it will be peer-edited, which means non-LDS scholars will have reviewed it and edited for accuracy. Certainly that’s a positive step for those dissatisfied with the Truman Madsen version.

Now that’s what we need. I’m incredibly frustrated with the whitewashed version since I know it’s not entirely honest. I just want the honest version, as objectively analyzed as possible. I know that’s more easily said than done, but for those of us who are in the position I’m in — wanting to believe and needing help from time to time — it would be so great if the Church could present a little more accurate picture of our history.

It might be worthwhile to discuss some of the content from mormonthink here for those who are looking for a way to stay.

What a fantastic suggestion! I will almost certainly be starting a few threads within the next couple of days.

But the major weakness (which Hawkgrrrl mentioned in more detail) is that it is only a compact summary, and it tends to lean towards the non-believing side when the authors present conclusions. It doesn’t present all the complexities. They tend to present conclusion along with the facts, and that is hard for people who are new and shocked to separate and identify easily without spending a LOT more time in this field.

Perhaps it would be helpful for us to define “Anti-Mormon.” Is anything not faith reaffirming Anti? Is an atheist/humanist Anti? Is anyone who points out contradictions in our beliefs Anti? Is it the packaging, the delivery, or the intent that makes it Anti?

Perhaps Anti-Mormon is like a value judgment that can shift depending on the eye of the beholder. For me personally, when I can see holes in their own conclusions and self-drawn correlations that I feel they should have known better, I would feel comfortable labelling them Anti. If they are comfortable distorting the truth to hurt the church, then I call them Anti. But what about persons like Michael Quinn who, while interpreting the facts seems to not be maliciously distorting them and who still self identifies with the church? I am not comfortable using the Anti label in cases like that.

I would not label D. Micahel Quinn as anti-Mormon. He is a historian who, according to him, deeply loves the Mormon faith and the LDS Church. He even continues to consider himself a believer even though they excommunicated him! Listening to his recent interview conducted by Mormon Stories almost brought tears to my eyes at points when he talked about it. BUT he also has a deep passion for history and for telling a more complete picture, or at least allowing people to consider different viewpoints based on well-researched history. I don’t believe he wants to ruin people’s faith, but you might say he knows that his work might alter their perspective. He takes responsibility for that, I think. So even though his works are very uncomfortable at times for people with a certain common perspective of our history, and who want to maintain a certain view, I don’t think he wishes any harm to anyone or the institution.

As always, there are varying levels of grey all along a spectrum.

The question is what church does he love and still believe in. It isn’t the church that a TBM testifies to on fast sunday, or a GA in conference in his all or nothing talk, or even the one that any one of us here would pledge our devotion to. Not a critcism but just an observation. What’s hard for me is when do the scales tip. When do you have to stop saying, “yes I know about that but it doesn’t matter”. At some point in time it has to matter or what you believe in is so nuanced and amorphous is like believing in (green)jello.

GBSmith: “The question is what church does he love and still believe in. It isn’t the church that a TBM testifies to on fast sunday, or a GA in conference in his all or nothing talk, or even the one that any one of us here would pledge our devotion to.”

The idea that there is only one church that exists is the illusion. Each of us means something slightly different when we talk about the church or the gospel. So, Quinn loves what he considers to be pure Mormonism. And I’m sure he feels fondness towards the institution and its members, even if he recognizes that they have simplistic or inaccurate views of history and nuance. I too was very moved by his MS interview. Tears were shed. A heart was touched. Passive voice was used.

I’m not sure I like labels like anti-Mormon, but I do think you have to try to be clear about the author’s intentions. Is it to present unbiased truth? To bolster an opinion and create a reputation (like Fawn Brodie)? Is there any self-justification involved? Does misery love company? Are people trying to win converts to their own conclusions?

Brian’s suggestion that anyone who is trying to encourage people to leave the church is anti-Mormon is a good starting point. I think some (but not all) at Mormon Think have that aim, regardless of what they might say. Quinn and others at Mormon Think probably share the desire for the church to be more open about its history and for members to be more nuanced in their beliefs about historical matters; they either want change in the institutional church or among the membership. The idea of Mormon Think is based on the idea that too many Mormons turn their brains off at church and are unwilling to question their assumptions about history. There’s some truth to that of course. But to what end? Is having an accurate understanding of history a virtue? I am not sure it motivates people to be more charitable or to be better parents or spouses or friends. I don’t think it’s inherently bad either, just not something that leads to happiness in the world. I would never advocate ignorance, and I’ve studied a lot about church history (and history in general cuz I like history). Studying history makes me less gullible, more nuanced, less black and white, but it doesn’t really make me a better person. Just more informed.

Here are some groups people might call anti-Mormon:

– Other faiths. Usually they want to prevent their flocks from being “deceived” or won over by the missionaries. Some of what they say is a twisted version of our beliefs (e.g. the dreaded magic underpants). Some of what they say is sensationalist to scare their flocks (e.g. “cult” and “non-Christian”). Some of them would say they don’t need to be charitable toward us because we are bad or deceiving people or because Mormons will go to hell. Some of them sin against us in ignorance, repeating what they’ve heard before, or not really knowing Mormons. This usually boils down to competition for converts.

– Bitter ExMormons. If they are angry and believe they were deceived and are now trying to undeceive as many as they can – they wish the church ill and mock believers and beliefs, to me that’s when they are anti-Mormon. This one usually boils down to trying to get back at the organization and its stupid members.

– Disaffected, NOM or Post-Mo. This is a mixed group, IMO, and it’s where the Mormon Think crowd fits in. I believe most of these end up leaving the church eventually, but they tend to land softer. They want a positive outcome, and they aren’t out to destroy the church or the faith of members. They no longer believe, so they can view believers condescendingly, but they are generally polite about it and supportive. They may consider it inevitable that eventually anyone who opens their eyes will see what they do, that the church isn’t what it claims and is making people’s lives worse for belonging. But they aren’t generally antiMormon in general. They may be anti specific aspects. They are critical. They would like the church to change some things.

– Mormon Intellectuals. Honestly, I think these folks are just smarter and more thoughtful than the average person and most of the leadership. They get a bum rap in the church because people who haven’t given these things as much thought find it threatening to be confronted with facts. They are sometimes called arrogant (I do think Paul Toscano is arrogant), which IMO would make them less intellectual, but I think calling someone arrogant can also just mean they are smarter than you.

– Anyone who says anything not faith-promoting. To me, this one is just ludicrous. We are not automatons, clones or minions of the PR department. We have our own thoughts and ideas. Suggesting change doesn’t make you anti-Mormon. But when people hate on these guys, they usually say something like “if you dislike the church, why don’t you leave it?” Why not stay in it because we recognize that it will change with time? It always has in the past. I like to be optimistic about change, but realistic about our flaws.

Long answer to that question!

…The thing that bugged me was that on their “Who are we?” page, they say, “About 25 Latter-day Saints have contributed substantially to the MormonThink website. The majority of those people are active, church-going members of the LDS Church. We have held positions ranging from Gospel Doctrine teachers, YW Presidents to Bishop. Some of us have written faith-promoting articles that have been published in the Ensign and other church publications. Most of us have served missions and almost all of us have been married in the temple. We’re just average everyday members that have a real interest in learning about accurate church history without all the sugarcoating that we often receive in Gospel Doctrine classes.” To me, that is off-the-charts disingenuous. The intent is to make people think that if these folks are telling you something, then it’s obviously true. The fact that they may still be showing up at Sacrament Meeting for whatever reason doesn’t prove anything. I just wish they’d be more honest and cut the crap.

To me mormonthink definitely looks like a stereotypical anti-Mormon site in that they give the impression that they want to expose information that the Church probably doesn’t want most members to know about (BoA translation issues, polyandry, etc.) because it generally isn’t faith-promoting toward the Church’s official doctrines. Basically, I doubt that it would bother them if they end up leading many people away from the Church permanently. However, I don’t think there is anything inherently dishonest or slanderous about what they are doing because many of the same issues have been acknowledged by Richard Bushman and various Mormon apologists that almost no one would accuse of being anti-Mormon and the main difference I see is simply their interpretation of what these things mean (I.E. it either suggests or does not really prove the Church is probably wrong depending on your point-of-view).

When I was a TBM I would have been offended by the overall tone and content of mormonthink but now I don’t really blame them because they probably feel liked they were tricked by the Church and simply want others to have the opportunity to decide for themselves based on all the available information. If the Church can’t compete in an open marketplace of ideas then as far as I’m concerned that’s their own fault for depending so much on claims about prophets supposedly being nearly perfect, exclusive authority, etc. Because of this, some of the LDS prophets and apostles own comments like what I read in the 14 Fundamentals talk, Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine, and Spencer W. Kimball’s Miracle of Forgiveness were far more damaging to my own testimony than any highly critical opinions of so-called anti-Mormons.