Thoughts on anti-Mormon lit etc. (reply to hippo)

[Anonymous]

I wanted to start a thread to reply to a comment by hippo in another thread, because it’s a very interesting topic for me.

hippo wrote:

This is probably a dumb question, but in light of what is happening to john dehlin, I have to ask it. Is all the stuff that I have read recently, like fawn Brodie’s book, Mormon stories, etc etc the truth? Or can even part of it be false or unconfirmed? Also, is there any record of the church coming forward and saying this “anti Mormon” literature is false? I’m just having a hard time wrapping my head around the church trying to excommunicate him for telling the truth. Slander? I totally get it. But if he is interviewing truth, then….

Growing up I remember being warned to not read antimormon literature as it was called. Was I being warned against reading the truth? To be honest, I’m scared to research more because of what more I’ll find out, and also because of the brainwashing to not do it still lingers….

My views–

I would like to be able to say in theory that a member should read and learn about anything and everything in the world. In practice, I’m not sure.

Neal Maxwell said there are some things that should be studied, and other things that should only be studies about.

Why would he say that? Here are my ideas. I would welcome other people’s ideas about this.

There seems to be something about spiritual knowledge that is fundamentally different from secular knowledge.

Secular knowledge: Scientists, historians, etc apply the methods of their disciplines to find out as much as they can about the world. They publish their results for all to consider, debate, and benefit from.

Spiritual knowledge: Wow, big topic. I will start by quoting a few scriptures:

Doctrine and Covenants 19:21-22

21 And I command you that you preach naught but repentance, and show not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me.

22 For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish.

Ether 4

5 Wherefore the Lord hath commanded me to write them; and I have written them. And he commanded me that I should seal them up; and he also hath commanded that I should seal up the interpretation thereof; wherefore I have sealed up the interpreters, according to the commandment of the Lord.

6 For the Lord said unto me: They shall not go forth unto the Gentiles until the day that they shall repent of their iniquity, and become clean before the Lord.

Alma 29: 8

8 For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that heseeth fit that they should have;

Hugh Nibley

“Let us always bear in mind that a mystery, by definition, is something that you keep to yourself; the Greek muō means ‘to shut up.’ A mystery is something you’ve been initiated into, and you don’t convey that to the general public.”

On Criticizing the Brethren, http://ash.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=49&chapid=316

From these thoughts and from other scriptures I haven’t quoted, I gather that spiritual knowledge must be handled carefully. You should get it only when you are ready to handle it.

How does this relate to anti-Mormon literature? Because I don’t imagine anti-Mormon literature usually contains revelations from God.

My main point is that I think faith and knowledge are sensitive. Faith is like a plant. When a plant is young if you dump too much water or expose it to too much light, you can destroy the plant rather than nourish it.

Practically speaking, the biggest problem I have with anti-Mormon lit is that it is usually so biased. Things labelled as “anti-Mormon” span the spectrum, but the hard-core stuff has a definite agenda. It is rhetorical rather than expositional. It will likely not be a balanced, thoughtful discussion trying to weigh all the evidence and arguments and arrive at truth.

So in the very least, I would recommend you read both sides of issues. For example, if you read No Man Knows My History, then also read Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling by a believing scholar. And also read the Book and Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants to remind you how amazing those revelations are. Read other words by Joseph such as his masterful King Follett Sermon given at the end of his life.

I’m about to read No Man Knows My History for the first time. To prepare, I have first learned about Brodie’s life and read some critiques about her book from apologists. Now I’ve got my suit of armor on, and I’m mentally prepared. I know it was well-received in the popular press, but also that real historians have expresses serious concerns about her methods (even more with her book about Thomas Jefferson). I already know she didn’t believe Joseph was a prophet, but was rather a clever charlatan. So I won’t be too shocked or offended or shaken when I read negative things about someone I greatly admire. My impression is that Brodie already believed Joseph was a fraud before she went on to write a book about him. OK, now let me see what I can learn from this classic of Mormon history. I will try to glean what is good from it, and try to understand why it is still considered a classic after all these years.

As far as Joseph Smith, I really do recommend Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. I thought it tried to be pretty even handed, even though the author is a believer. Some other TBM Mormons have criticized it for not praising Joseph enough or being a hagiography, which is one reason I trust it.

Back to my main point: Spiritual knowledge is powerful. It can build or destroy. Lies and distortions and even misunderstandings can also destroy. So just keep that in mind.

[Anonymous]

Good OP.

Shoshin, In order to have any kind of conversation like this, you need to first answer a simple question.

If something is critical of the church, and makes the church look bad, is it ANTI MORMON literature even if it is TRUE?

Example….just for thought, say that Brodie is telling the truth about Joseph Smith, everything she writes is true. Does that make her material Anti mormon lit because it harms the church’s image?

[Anonymous]

To me the issue with anti-mormon literature is similar to the problem with the teachings of the Church itself. There is way too much focus on information and an under-focus on spirituality. The reason I can stay somewhat connected to the Church, even though I believe that there is no God is that there is something very powerful in spirituality. Since I believe that there is no God, I don’t need anti-mormon literature to tell me how to interpret the Church. All religion is man-made in my opinion. All types of religion, therefore, are equally ‘wrong’ in that sense. Yet, it’s not proof-by-evidence that is compelling, but how it affects my soul spiritually.

Much anti literature is amateurish and phony and misguided. My opinion. One main problem with anti-any-religion rests in overstating the importance of the particular subject. It is like somebody telling you that because you speak English you commonly use the word ‘jentacular’. Yes, it is in the dictionary, but it isn’t part of my dialog. It probably occupies the same space in the dictionary as words that I do use. To have somebody tell you you are a bad person because you are an English speaker so you use the word ‘jentacluar’ is very similar to how bad we are as Mormons because of Adam-God or blood atonement… or more broadly… stating that the English language is untrue because of the word ‘jentacular’.

I’ll give you an example of one common case that falls into this bucket for me. Anti literature is very keen on the seerstone-in-the-hat issue. We do know, and the Church has recently acknowledged that JS used the seerstone in his hat and his head in the hat to translate the Book of Mormon. But so what? We also know that he translated in other ways. We have no idea if the head-in-the-hat method was used for 10%, 50% or 90% of the BofM translation… we only know that it was one method and that there were others. Furthermore, while it sounds completely bizarre and superstitiously motivated to us in the early 21st century, the magic behind something like that would have been easily interpreted as a power from another realm in the early 19th century. If I am supposed to discard spirituality because JS used a spiritualistic device (or prop) to ‘translate’ the BofM, then I am sorely misunderstanding the value of religion/spirituality.

The Church, itself, also suffers from the same concepts on the opposite side of the spectrum. Too much information. I rarely hear ‘worship’ in our Church meetings, but I frequently hear gospel trivia. Quick how many degrees are there in the Celestial Kingdom? You know this and have been aware of it forever. Finish this phrase “Willie and ____.” Brigham Young said, “This is the ____.” The Gold Plates were found where? Many can tell you the date that the Angel Moroni appeared to JS for the first time, or how long it took to build the Salt Lake Temple. What day is Jesus’ birthday? How many Nephites does it take to wait for the Millenium? The list goes on and on. Even the Temple ceremony itself has been described as conveying specific signs and tokens that you must know to pass by the angel sentinels guarding the entrance to heaven, which is selling the ceremony very short. But the most important thing the Church teaches is not in all those things but in how the atonement can give us strength to live a God-centered life (IMO).

[Anonymous]

Excellent OP, shoshin – and I agree with much of what you wrote. My own view is:

“Anti-Mormon”, by definition, means “opposed to Mormonism”. The term itself has nothing whatsoever to do with being true or false or any combination between those extremes. Therefore, anti-Mormon literature can be false, but it also can be true – and some anti-Mormon literature (most of it, I would say) is both.

The key to me is understanding what is which – and that can be difficult to impossible for many people. For those people, I understand completely and accept the need to avoid anti-Mormon material; for those who can distinguish and understand what is which, reading such material can be fine.

For example, I wrote my Bachelor’s Thesis about Manifest Destiny as a religious concept NOT a racial concept, and I used the case of the 19th century LDS Church as the flagship example (since they were WASPs in every meaningful sense but excluded by Protestant America in its description of Manifest Destiny). In order to write that thesis, I had to read a whole lot of anti-Mormon literature from that time period – which was fine for me, since I was able to sift through what I saw as correct and incorrect – what was analytical, emotional, religious, hyperbolic, etc.

It’s all about the individual, not the material itself.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

If something is critical of the church, and makes the church look bad, is it ANTI MORMON literature even if it is TRUE?

A very important question, I think.

My main interest in posting was to discuss the nature of spiritual knowledge and faith. But that may not even be a direct response to his/her question (OK is hippo a his or her?

I would like to ask hippo what he/he meant, since that was the motivation for this thread. But until/unless he/she replies here, I guess we need a working definition of anti-Mormon information.

There would seem to be many possible types of AM lit, and they are also on a continuum of how “anti” they are. I have avoided AM as a rule, but I’m familiar with some of it (God-Makers movie, Tanners, etc.) mostly by reading Hugh Nibley discuss it.

What I mainly think of as AM is stuff that intentionally tries to persuade people that the church is not what it claims to be, namely the church of Christ re-established in modern times. So I guess there could be a continuum of this type of lit. Maybe one end would be a scholar or essayist using historical info or logical arguments (the Richard Dawkins type of angle). The other end would be the most “toxic” type, which uses any and all means including lies, distortions, and rhetorical sophistry (this type would be willing to lie, thinking the ends justifies the means of bringing down that “evil” Mormon church).

Other people can really discuss AM better than I, since I’m not familiar with it.

So what about true things that still cause damage, which you touched on. I don’t know about Brodie – I haven’t read her myself. But I did just look at a book that fits what I’m talking about: Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, by D. Michael Quinn. Lets assume this book is 100% true and accurate (the FAIR apologist would debate this point, but let’s assume it for now. I haven’t personally checked all his sources etc.). Quinn’s book claims Joseph and early members were into superstitious things like peep stones, divining rods, magic parchments, finding treasure using “spiritually”-derived insights, etc.

So let’s assume it’s all true the way Quinn lays it out. This could cause “shaken faith” to some Mormons who have only ever heard the correlated info about Joseph Smith. In my opinion, this type of person has a naive and simplistic view of Joseph. So they could be shocked. “Why didn’t anyone tell me about this!” So because their uninformed image of Joseph is shattered, they may think everything else is a lie. (I would tell them at this point that just because Joseph’s story is more complex than they thought doesn’t automatically mean he wasn’t a prophet. Joseph apparently grew up in superstitious surroundings but later outgrew it when he learned better and became a prophet.)

OK, so what about books like Quinn’s then? I would put these in the “too much water and light” for a young plant category. Investigators, and probably some life-time members, aren’t ready to process it. It’s ultimately not core-important anyway in my opinion.

I would say there is no reason to discuss Quinn’s book in a Sunday School; that’s not the purpose of Sunday School. But I think it’s a good idea for Mormons to become informed. Quinn’s book is therefore valuable, insofar as it’s been honest with its sources.

Now, I think Quinn was disfellowshipped, maybe for this book, maybe for something else. Brodie was excommunicated for her book. Why did these things happen and was the church wrong to do so? I don’t know, I wasn’t in the church court and I don’t know the full story or the reasons.

Personally, I think “true” books like Quinn’s (again, assuming it is accurate) are interesting and add a big dimension of new understanding to church history and Smith’s revelations. But they don’t determine my testimony. Smith was either a prophet or he wasn’t. I believe he was. I have the evidence of the Spirit that this is the case. I have the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. How exactly these came to be revealed is ultimately unimportant. I have read them, and I think they marvelous and are in fact true revelations from God for us.

[Anonymous]

shoshin wrote:

cwald wrote:

If something is critical of the church, and makes the church look bad, is it ANTI MORMON literature even if it is TRUE?

A very important question, I think.

My main interest in posting was to discuss the nature of spiritual knowledge and faith. But that may not even be a direct response to his/her question (OK is hippo a his or her?

I would like to ask hippo what he/he meant, since that was the motivation for this thread. But until/unless he/she replies here, I guess we need a working definition of anti-Mormon information.

Hi shoshin,

I am a she

Thanks everyone’s comments thus far. I think cwald hit close to what I was personally asking or trying to get at. Basically, is the stuff the church discourages us to read mostly factual? I get that there are those who really intend to draw people from the church, but what about the facts? What is the difference between an anti Mormon slant, and the glossy version we get in Sunday school? Neither makes me feel good and confidant in the source. Is either the truth, or is it in the middle somewhere?

I agree spiritual knowledge is acquired differently, but it is hard to find it at church that hammers trivia into our head as was stated earlier and ignores possible facts in history at the same time.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think there is any problem whatsoever with any truth, no matter its source; I think there is a problem with any untruth, no matter its source. (There are examples of both in every imaginable category, even in generally accepted history textbooks.)

ALL truth is important, in and of itself. All truth is not relevant or necessary at any given time to any given person. That is a very important distinction.

Again, whether or not something should be read is about the individual, not the material.

[Anonymous]

Shoshin, that was a nice response, and I agree with much of it, but you never answered the question.

Using your example, do you consider Quinn’s book anti mormon or not. … yes or no?

I don’t think the conversation works until you define the term “anti mormon.”

Thanks

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

Shoshin, that was a nice response, and I agree with much of it, but you never answered the question.

Using your example, do you consider Quinn’s book anti mormon or not. … yes or no?

I don’t think the conversation works until you define the term “anti mormon.”

I tried to explain my thoughts about a definition. Let me take another crack.

I think there are many types of books (or videos, etc) that could be called anti-Mormon. Here are some that come to mind.

1. Intentional attacks on Mormonism, with the aim to discredit the church or persuade people to disbelieve. The information may be correct or not, but in any case it is presented as part of building a “case” against the church.

2. Information about Mormonism that is not meant as an attack but is a sincere attempt to arrive at truth. It may uncover true information that casts an unfavorable light on Mormonism or shocks people. Even if 100% true it may not be wise for a Mormon to read it if their faith is not developed enough. Ideally, I would like to believe that all Mormons can and should seek all truth and read anything, including this type of book. However, even so, some things are more important to spend time on than others, from an “eternal worth” perspective.

OK, those are actually the only categories I can think of. Are there more I wonder?

So Quinn’s book is #2 assuming Quinn is sincere about merely seeking truth.

[Anonymous]

hippo wrote:

I think cwald hit close to what I was personally asking or trying to get at. Basically, is the stuff the church discourages us to read mostly factual? I get that there are those who really intend to draw people from the church, but what about the facts? What is the difference between an anti Mormon slant, and the glossy version we get in Sunday school? Neither makes me feel good and confidant in the source. Is either the truth, or is it in the middle somewhere?

I agree spiritual knowledge is acquired differently, but it is hard to find it at church that hammers trivia into our head as was stated earlier and ignores possible facts in history at the same time.

There is all kinds of stuff out there, anywhere between absolutely true and absolute lies.

I personally think you can trust whatever the church publishes, such as lesson manuals, etc. Is it the complete story? No, it’s impossible to tell the whole story about anything, for one thing. Is the church intentionally trying to cover stuff up? I don’t know, but it seems like in the past the church may not opted not to spread information that was true but was embarrassing or could harm faith. Investigators don’t need to know about polygamy, in my opinion. They need to understand that God’s church as been restored and it’s important to follow the 10 commandments, and have faith and get baptized.

Of course the church telling only part of the story is not the same thing as lying. The church in recent times has been trying to be more open I believe opening their historical archives. They have definitely started publishing more information about “controversial” think on their website, trying to give more info.

Why don’t we hear about the controversial topics, deep philosophical debates, etc in regular church meetings? In my opinion it’s because that is not the purpose of the meetings. Their purpose is to worship and to remind us all about the basics, to renew our faith, to hopefully feel the Spirit after a week of the daily grind out in a wicked world.

Does the church discourage people from learning about all the other stuff? I don’t think I’ve ever heard a church leader say that. I’m sure they would tell you anti-Mormon lies are not healthy for faith and are a waste of time.

But as far as sincere books about history, textbooks about philosophy or other religions, feminism, etc. I think those are all OK, if you decide they are worth your time. Are they essential right now to your spiritual growth? Probably not. Faith, charity, forgiving – these things are what we all need to worry about in this life.

But the church definitely encourages people to be as educated as possible. My understanding of the gospel is that it includes all truth. I believe the church and gospel can stand up to any scrutiny by an honest person, and that our faith includes learning all knowledge sooner or later. Growing in knowledge and wisdom is a big part of our religion. “The glory of God is intelligence” and “seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.” These scriptures are often emphasized by church leaders.

[Anonymous]

Honestly, as everyone who has been around for long enough knows, I focus a lot on using the right words and analyzing statements closely to take away only the meaning of the words used in them. I don’t want other people to “read the between the lines” of what I write or accuse me of saying anything I don’t actually say, so I try to do the same for them and what they say, verbally or in print.

Likewise, I take the word “anti-Mormon” and, like I said in my original comment, define it SOLELY on its actual composition. To me, this is a very simple exercise, since “”anti” means “opposed to” and “Mormon” (in this context”) means “LDS Church”. Thus, “anti-Mormon” means “opposed to the LDS Church” – and absolutely nothing more.

I believe anything that addresses stuff that is NOT opposed to the LDS Church should not be called anti-Mormon – that there needs to be another way of describing anything that is “information about Mormonism that is not meant as an attack but is a sincere attempt to arrive at truth”. That sort of stuff isn’t anti-Mormon, and using that term clouds the issue and enlarges ignorance – since too many people will not consider anything that gets labeled as anti-Mormon.

Simple side note:

It drives me nuts when people debate about the meaning of “Anti-Nephi-Lehis”. Linguistically, there are only two reasonable meanings: “Lehi’s descendants who were opposed to / did not follow Nephi”. Looking for more expansive definitions doesn’t make sense to me, just like making “anti-Mormon” overly broad doesn’t work at all for me.

[Anonymous]

shoshin wrote:

cwald wrote:

Shoshin, that was a nice response, and I agree with much of it, but you never answered the question.

Using your example, do you consider Quinn’s book anti mormon or not. … yes or no?

I don’t think the conversation works until you define the term “anti mormon.”

I tried to explain my thoughts about a definition. Let me take another crack.

I think there are many types of books (or videos, etc) that could be called anti-Mormon. Here are some that come to mind.

1. Intentional attacks on Mormonism, with the aim to discredit the church or persuade people to disbelieve. The information may be correct or not, but in any case it is presented as part of building a “case” against the church.

2. Information about Mormonism that is not meant as an attack but is a sincere attempt to arrive at truth. It may uncover true information that casts an unfavorable light on Mormonism or shocks people. Even if 100% true it may not be wise for a Mormon to read it if their faith is not developed enough. Ideally, I would like to believe that all Mormons can and should seek all truth and read anything, including this type of book. However, even so, some things are more important to spend time on than others, from an “eternal worth” perspective.

OK, those are actually the only categories I can think of. Are there more I wonder?

So Quinn’s book is #2 assuming Quinn is sincere about merely seeking truth.

So Quinn’s book is NOT anti mormon?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

Shoshin said

Quote:

I personally think you can trust whatever the church publishes, such as lesson manuals, etc. Is it the complete story? No, it’s impossible to tell the whole story about anything,

I want to clarify that this does not seem like a helpful discussion point for me (a fighting for faith believer) when 8 out of my 11 RM friends all who are mostly on a continuem of struggling much deeper than I am to all the way to disaffected. I would boil it mostly down to an absolute shock/ betrayal of the concerted misrepresentation of events that led to Joseph’s mayrterdom. IE “the dark powers of satin surrounded the restoration work and for no good reason other their evil hearts did this mob kill the earth’s restoration prophet”

When you learn just the mildest of basic facts are night and day different at the fateful time you dare to boot up your computer (ie Wikipedia) in 21st century you just don’t know what you can trust anymore because the absolute core tenant of these events that are always pointed at as proof of his prophetic mission are turned on its head. For us as a group, the churches own material that brought us (all born in mid 70’s) up through Sunday School, Seminary and Institute was the “anti” material I would assert. If “anti” is described as core taught material that would lead or set someone up to the absolute core rocking of ones faith at some point.

[Anonymous]

I agree Shades of Grey. In defense of Shoshin, he hasn’t really experienced a crisis of faith so I think it’s more difficult for him to understand the hurt – the great feeling of betrayal – that many of us have felt. To us it’s very real, and I am quite frankly scarred by it. For him it’s like trying to understand depression without ever having actually experienced it – it can be understood in the abstract and academically/intellectually, but it lacks the emotion/feelings of the real experience.

[Anonymous]

Speaking of anti-Mormons and Joseph Smith, I ran across this interesting article today talking about how most past books about Joseph Smith have been based on dubious original sources.

Quote:

Among the earliest descriptions of Joseph were those published by Abner Cole, over the name of Obadiah Dogberry, editor of the Palmyra, New York, Reflector. Using the E. B. Grandin press, the moonlighting Cole gained unauthorized access to the Book of Mormon manuscript in 1829 and actually published extracts from it in his newspaper until forced to desist by Joseph Smith.

Miffed at the discovery and forcible discontinuance of his secret enterprise, Cole sought to defame Joseph Smith and his work. He described the Prophet in degrading terms and explained the Book of Mormon as a deception growing out of the family’s use of “peep stones” to dig for hidden treasure guarded by evil spirits. He claimed that Joseph concocted the idea of finding a book from the suggestion of a vagabond conjurer named Walters who had participated with the Smiths in their digging ventures. 2

Cole laid the groundwork for the theme of deception, indolence, and irreligion that was to characterize descriptions of Joseph Smith in subsequent non-Mormon writings.

But while early newspapers labeled Joseph Smith as an unprincipled character, it was Eber D. Howe’s book, Mormonism Unvailed in 1834 that canonized that theme for future non-Mormon discussions.

Howe’s work was the culmination of efforts of a Kirtland, Ohio, anti-Mormon committee spearheaded by an embittered ex-Mormon, Philastus Hurlbut, cut off from the Church for immorality. Having been restrained by court injunction from committing personal violence upon Joseph Smith, Hurlbut undertook to vent his wrath by prospecting for information that would “divest Joseph Smith of all claims to the character of an honest man, and place him at an immeasurable distance from the high station which he pretends to occupy.” 3

The result consisted of affidavits signed by eighty-two New York and Pennsylvania residents who claimed personal knowledge derogatory to the Smith character. The affidavits portrayed Joseph Smith as “lazy, intemperate,” “entirely destitute of moral character and addicted to vicious habits,” including the deceptive practice of digging for hidden treasure. 4 The legal framework of the documents gave them a strong flavor of credibility in an age uncritical of its information.

[As of this 1979 article] With the exception of I. Woodbridge Riley’s work, The Founder of Mormonism: A Psychological Study of Joseph Smith, Jr., (1902) in which the author sought to examine Joseph Smith’s character from the standpoint of psychology, almost every significant non-Mormon study of Joseph Smith from 1834 to the present has used the Hurlbut framework.

Joseph Smith’s Reputation

By Dean Jessee

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/09/joseph-smiths-reputation?lang=eng

[Author]

Posts