What is the definition of 'anti-Mormon'? - Anti-Mormon Caucus (Just Kidding)

Mormon Times ^ | March 5, 2010 | By McKay Coppins

[greyfoxx39]

What is the definition of 'anti-Mormon'?

 

I have often heard the criticism that Latter-day Saints classify everyone who disagrees with our beliefs as "anti-Mormon." Of course, the people who say this are usually anti-Mormons. Am I proving their point? I don't think so.

I actually agree that this is a problem in our church. After all, our belief system, if firmly embraced, demands a lot of personal sacrifice, and we often become hyper-defensive when we sense a threat to our faith.

Unfortunately, this often leads to irrational name-calling and blindly neglecting to differentiate between non-Mormons and anti-Mormons.

Of course, that's not to say anti-Mormons don't exist, or that it's unimportant to identify them. We just need to properly define the term.

First of all, we shouldn't call people who simply don't believe in Mormonism "anti-Mormons." We should call them Catholics or Baptists or Muslims or atheists. People who ascribe themselves to faiths or philosophies that contradict Mormonism should not automatically be seen as antagonists. They should be credited with having their own beliefs.

Now, what about people who try to convert Latter-day Saints to their belief systems? Are they anti-Mormons?

No.

The believing Baptist who testifies of his church's doctrine to a Latter-day Saint is trying to do something he believes is constructive. Even if he attempts to point out supposed flaws in Mormon doctrine, if his genuine intent is to save a soul and he maintains a polite, rational tone, I don't think he deserves the anti-Mormon label. After all, should Mormon missionaries be considered anti-Catholics or anti-Protestants?

The line, I believe, that separates non-Mormons from anti-Mormons is motivation. Anti-Mormons are people who put down Mormon beliefs, practices and people simply for the sake of destroying their faith. Not many anti-Mormons would admit that is their primary goal, of course, but that doesn't mean it isn't so.

For the most part, anti-Mormons should be ignored. But before that can happen, they have to be identified

[T. P. Pole]

Sorry, been busy.

[Gnostics] were determined by the Councils not to be considered Christian. The Gnostic heresies are precisely why the early creeds were developed and the canon solidified. They are both measuring sticks of orthodox (correct) doctrine versus heterodox doctrine.

So, Mormons are not Christians because they do not follow the creeds and canon defined by a committee of men some 300 years after Christ, but instead follow the creeds and canon defined by a committee of men some 1800 years after Christ.

I do agree that we need to define this differently, though. I think I will start using the phrase Trinitarian-Christian. Mormons are definitely not Trinitarian-Christians. Of course, many would argue that the early apostles and even Christ Himself were not Trinitarian-Christians, either.

[Elsie]

I had a Navajo gentleman give me some kind of ‘blessing’ once in Page, AZ. but I think that he was just looking for a handout.

[Elsie]

The Bible is universal it does not belong to anyone group or faith but to many who used the scriptures to define their own creeds.

The JST is NOT uniuversal; even among MORMONs!

The Rlds folks OWN the copyright!

---

(ex-RLDS folks - they have changed their name to Community of Christ)

[Elsie]

It matters not what you believe to me I know and testify that Joseph Smith was called and is a Prophet of the Lord Jesus Christ and your opinion carries no weight with me!

Neither do historical FACTS.

[Elsie]

It matters not what you believe to me I know and testify that Joseph Smith was called and is a Prophet of the Lord Jesus Christ ....

It matters nothing what the MORMON Religious Organization proclaims; Joseph Smith was DECEIVED by TWO angels of LIGHT:

The BIBLE proves it.

[Godzilla]

So, Mormons are not Christians because they do not follow the creeds and canon defined by a committee of men some 300 years after Christ, but instead follow the creeds and canon defined by a committee of men some 1800 years after Christ.

It seems mormons try to blame everything on Nicea. For starters TP, gnosticism existed in various forms prior to Christ. The type of belief tended to add to it attractive parts of other religions. As Christianity spread, they started adapting portions of it to their gnostic systems of beliefs. We know from the NT, these teachings were trying to lure Christians into them by 60-70 AD and John especially writes regarding them around 90 AD in 1 John. The People who resisted them WERE THE APOSTLES - THEY started defining Christianity in response to gnostics.

I do agree that we need to define this differently, though. I think I will start using the phrase Trinitarian-Christian.

That is the only kind of Christian TP. Show me in scripture that there were polytheistic 'Christians' like mormons are today. You won't because Jesus was monotheistic in His teachings. If there was just one God - period - Jesus could not be God.

[Elsie]

As it stands, it is just the kind of statement that demonstates rationalization...

No; it demonstrates GENERALIZATION.

SOMEone is AFRAID to mention names (mind reading charges would come up) so they say 'some' or 'many' or 'quite a lot' and then let others try to figure out who she they mean.

It is the cowards way out.

[T Minus Four]

Hi Resty, hope you’re having a good Thursday. I’ve had you on my mind all day :-)

[Elsie]

And, alas, sometimes you get a mumbling old man or someone with a strong accent.

Hey!

I resemble that remark!

(To an upstate New Yawker, I might have a strong Hoosier accent.)

[reaganaut]

Ping to #480.

Thank you, Tadpole.

[greyfoxx39]

I think I will start using the phrase Trinitarian-Christian. Mormons are definitely not Trinitarian-Christians. Of course, many would argue that the early apostles and even Christ Himself were not Trinitarian-Christians, either.

Why strain at gnats and swallow camels?

Christians are Christians. Mormons are mormons.

When you start designating all the different subsets of mormons like the FLDS as mormons, THEN let's worry about what subset name mormons should arbitrarily assign to Christians as if it were their right to do so. At least the mormon splinter groups originated with Joseph Smith.

When the miniscule number of mormons in the world take it upon themselves to assign a designation to the many millions in the body of Christ, it is IMO, overreaching by a wide margin.

[Safrguns]

>>> ... so you think Safrguns the Bible is not for all of God’s children to repent and to come to Him!

God’s Word is just that... GOD’S WORD... not man’s.
That was my point. I said nothing about what I believe the bible was for or not for.

The original comment I was critiquing made it clear that God’s word was being “USED” to “DEFINE” their “OWN” creeds.

If I said that I believed that the bible talks about the existence of extra terrestrial life on earth, and no doubt I could find passages that would support such a theory...
the truth of that matter (is there or is there not extra terrestrial life on earth) would not be impacted one way or the other by what I believe. The truth is the truth.

I was simply illustrating how the original comment about the “universal” aspects of the bible is actually a very self contradicting statement.

How can something from a single source (God) also be defined universally by multiple individuals???

[T. P. Pole]

Our recently-released Stake patriarch was native German and had an accent so think you could barely understand him. Since patriarchal blessings are one of the few that get recorded (on paper), I always felt so sorry for his secretary, who had to transcribe them, somehow.

[Tennessee Nana]

The word of God is given to all mankind...
_____________________________________________

Yes, Resty....

Jesus who is the Word of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, the ONLY Begotten Son of God the Father, was given by God for all mankind...for the whole world...

But not everyone in the world will be saved...

Only those who believe...

For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only Son, who is at the Father’s side, has made Him known. John 3:16-18

[mrreaganaut]

So, Mormons are not Christians because they do not follow the creeds and canon defined by a committee of men some 300 years after Christ, but instead follow the creeds and canon defined by a committee of men some 1800 years after Christ.

No, Mormons are not Christians because they follow one man, Joseph Smith, Jr., and his teachings (as Mormons say) in addition to Jesus Christ. Christians find this addition of Smith to be a replacement of Christ, while the definition of Christ 'by a committee of men some 300 years after Christ' is a clarification.

It is possible to believe in a non-Trinitarian Christ; Islam does. Of course, Islam is not claiming to be Christian.

[reaganaut]

Mormons are not Christians because they espouse un-biblical doctrines. The gnostic hereseys brought to the forefront the need of a consistant determination (measuring stick or canon) of Biblical doctrine.

The term ‘Trinitarian-Christians’ is an oxymoron. Christians believe in the Trinity. Your appeal to Jesus and the Apostles doesn’t work because they were not Polytheist (3 Gods one in purpose only) like the LDS, they were Monotheists like Christians.

So we are back to what makes someone a Christian, recognizing the need for a Savior isn’t the whole package.

[Elsie]

....I always felt so sorry for his secretary, who had to transcribe them, somehow.

"Close enough for Gov't work!"

[ejonesie22]

I have never seen such an effort made to try and be part of something that the very founder of their “faith” called an abomination as I do in the Modern LDS.

When your core believe is PR and your main sacrament marketing, well I guess I can see it, Christ has one heck of a brand recognition rating...

[Godzilla]

Christ has one heck of a brand recognition rating...

Give them credit for recognizing that 'mormon' automatically brings out negative views. But wrap your self in 'Jesus', well they think they can get away with it. Doesn't work anymore - too much of the truth is out there that can't be ignored with the "Jesus " mask

[delacoert]

Of course, many would argue that the early apostles and even Christ Himself were not Trinitarian-Christians, either.

Hogwash.

Mormons certainly argue this, but the vast majority of Christians will just as certainly have nothing to do with such theological poison. Trying to sidle up next to Christians with such heretical nonsense may catch some unawares, but not many.