Who Are The New Anti-Mormons

Since the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and even before, there have been those opposed to the Church. More aptly named “Critics of the Church” or “Enemies of the Church,” they have traditionally been known inside the Church as “Anti-Mormons.” Which, of course is short-hand for “Against Mormons.” And, as you might imagine, those who would be classified in that category, usually strongly object to the use of the term. But, nevertheless, the term prevails to this day.
Over the years, the folks who might be called Anti-Mormons have changed. Even though, for the most part, there has always been a religious overtone to those objecting to various things in and about the Church and its teachings, it has not always been about that. And in my observation, it might be even different today.
In many ways, the Internet has thoroughly changed the dissemination of information both for and against the Church. What used to be primarily through books, newspapers, pamphlets and word of mouth, is now instantaneously available in the privacy of one’s own home via an electronic device. One only needs to do a search on the word “Mormon” and droves of links are available both for and against the Church. Information, both historical and current, can be accessed and one is left on their own to interpret and evaluate it as they wish.
A Short History
The history of anti-Mormon activity hearkens back to the very origins of the Church itself. As many Church members know, Joseph Smith was ridiculed from the very moment he revealed his vision to others. In Joseph Smith – History from the Pearl of Great Price, we read,
“Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.
I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all united to persecute me.” (Joseph Smith—History 1:21-22)
That was only the beginning.
In New York, anti-Mormon behavior dealt mainly whether or not Smith actually had the gold plates, if Smith really had his visions, Smith’s treasure-digging episodes, and accusations of occult practices and the Book of Mormon as extra-biblical literature on equal footing with the Bible.
In Ohio, anti-Mormons focused on the ill-fated banking efforts of the Kirtland Safety Society and other failed economic experiments including the United Order.
In Missouri, once the chosen gathering place of the Latter Day Saints, Mormons tended to vote as a bloc, wielding “considerable political and economic influence,” often unseating local political leadership and earning long-lasting enmity in the sometimes hard-drinking, hard-living frontier communities. These differences culminated in hostilities and the eventual issuing of an executive order (since called the Extermination Order) by Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs declaring “the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State.” Three days later, a renegade militia unit attacked a Mormon settlement at Haun’s Mill, resulting in the death of 18 Mormons and no militiamen. The Extermination Order was not formally rescinded until 1976.
In Nauvoo, Illinois, persecutions were often based on the tendency of Mormons to “dominate community, economic, and political life wherever they resided.” The city of Nauvoo had become the largest in Illinois, the city council was predominantly Mormon, and the Nauvoo Legion (the Mormon militia) had grown to a quarter of the size of the U.S. Army. Other issues of contention included polygamy, freedom of speech, anti-slavery views during Smith’s presidential campaign, and the deification of man. After the destruction of the press of the Nauvoo Expositor and institution of martial law, Joseph Smith, Jr. was arrested on charges of treason against the state of Illinois and incarcerated in Carthage Jail where he was killed by a mob on June 27, 1844. The persecution in Illinois became so severe that most of the residents of Nauvoo fled across the Mississippi River in February 1846.
In 1847 Mormons established a community hundreds of miles away in the Salt Lake Valley in Utah. Beginning in 1849, every federally appointed official left Utah under duress. In 1857 President Buchanan concluded that the Mormons in the territory were rebelling against the United States. In response, President Buchanan sent one-third of the USA’s standing army to Utah in 1857 in what is known as the Utah War. However, the main objection to the Mormons in Utah was driven by the faith’s open practice of polygamy. The United States government eventually outlawed the practice and Mormons abandoned it. But yet the persecution as a result of it continues to this day. (Wikipedia)
The term “anti-Mormon” first appears in the historical record in 1833 by the Louisville (Kentucky) Daily Herald in an article, “The Mormons and the Anti-Mormons” (the article was also the first known to label believers in the Book of Mormon as “Mormons”). In 1841, it was revealed that an Anti-Mormon Almanac would be published. On August 16 of that year, the Latter Day Saint “Times and Seasons” reported the Mormons’ confidence that although the Anti-Mormon Almanac was designed by “Satan and his emissaries” to flood the world with “lies and evil reports”, still “we are assured that in the providence of God they will ultimately tend to the glory of God—the spread of truth and the good of the church”.
The anti-Mormon newspaper certainly was not the first of its kind; Mormonism had been criticized strongly by dozens of publications since its inception, most notably by Eber D. Howe’s 1834 book Mormonism Unvailed. The Latter Day Saints initially labeled such publications “anti-Christian”, but the publication of the Almanac and the subsequent formation of an “Anti-Mormon Party” in Illinois heralded a shift in terminology. “Anti-Mormon” became, on the lips of the church’s critics, a proud and politically charged self-designation. . (Wikipedia)

In addition to Howe, some of the leading Anti-Mormons of that era were;
- TBH Stenhouse “ Tell it All: the Tyranny of Mormonism”
- John H. Beadle “Polygamy or The Mysteries and Crimes and of Mormonism”
- Ann Eliza Young: “Wife No. 19” (an ex-wife of Brigham Young)
The Great Evangelical Attacks of the 20th Century
As was previously mentioned, throughout the 1800’s, the bulk of Anti-Mormon activity centered on regional, political, and economic issues rather than specific doctrinal issues. Even though the teachings of the LDS Church by the mid- 1850s had most certainly diverged from prevailing mainstream Christian thought. There were the on-going objections to the Book of Mormon standing alongside the Bible, the concept of a Living Prophet, continuous revelation and an open canon, and the practice of polygamy, doctrinal conflict amid renewed Anti-Mormon activity really blossomed beginning in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980’s.
A new crop of critics emerged with a similar, yet expanded set of complaints. And they used the available forms of communication to more effectively preach their message.
The deans of the modern Anti-Mormon activity were Jerald and Sandra Tanner, who founded the Modern Microfilm Company in Salt Lake City in 1964 to “”document problems with the claims of Mormonism and to compare LDS doctrines with Christianity.” In 1983 they turned their company into a non-profit organization and renamed it the Utah Lighthouse Ministry. (www.utlm.org).
Both Jerald and Sandra were members of the LDS Church with deep pioneer roots who converted to evangelical Protestantism. Ironically, many of the things they published were of deep interest to LDS people and were previously unpublished through normal sources. However, their critical interpretation of the documents, their argumentative tone and their publishing of copyrighted materials set them up as Anti-Mormons in the strictest sense, and paved the way for the others who followed.
The follow-ons to the Tanners took even a harsher tone against the Church Ed Decker (Founder of Saints Alive in Jesus), Richard Baer and Dave Hunt produced the most well-known piece of Anti-Mormon work, The God Makers and God Makers II, a book and then two movies. The film, which was launched in 1982 was a haunting tale with ominous music, interviews, a cartoon depiction of the Plan of Salvation and even an interview with a Mission President. It presented itself as a documentary. The film was shown in churches all across Americas as the authors toured around warning Christians of the threat posed by the growing LDS Church. The God Makers II was a poor cousin to the first movie made up of outtakes from the original and focusing primarily on the Temple Ceremonies.
I had the opportunity to see the film at a very large church in San Jose, which was highlighted by a lecture by Ed Decker. I also saw it again in a smaller Church, this time with Dick Baer as the presenter. In both cases, they answered questions from the congregation and of course, passed the donation plates for the support of “their work.”
One of the main selling points of these anti-Mormon critics was their “Mormon cred” – credibility. In other words, the Tanners, Decker and Baer had all been members so they had the inside scoop, the secrets, and the dirty details. However, none of them ever held any substantive leadership position to my knowledge (Update: I’m told Ed Decker served in a Bishopric in Washington.). In fact, one of the most interesting points about the Anti-Mormon industry was the propensity to quote each other as their sources of information. Hugh Nibley pointed this out in his book, “Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass – The Art of Telling Tales About Joseph Smith and Brigham Young,” In a chapter entitled “How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book (A Handbook for Beginners).
The most prolific Anti-Mormon of that period had to be Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute. Martin was the author of the landmark, “Kingdom of the Cults,” which profiled the various religions and denominations he classified as cults. The LDS Church was, of course, one of them. He also had a radio show known as the “Bible Answer Man” and had debated numerous Mormon apologists such as Van Hale. He died in 1989.
The mantra of these Anti-Mormons was pretty much the same, centering on these major points:
- Mormons are Not Christians – Because the teachings of the LDS Church were not in line with what they called “Historic Christian Traditions” regarding the Nature of God, role of Satan, Living Prophets, continuing revelation, open canon and extra-biblical texts, and the truth of the Bible as far as it is translated correctly, etc., we are deemed by them as not a Christian Church despite claims to the contrary. This mainly because, in their minds:
- Mormons worship a different Jesus – Because of our doctrine on the Nature of God as separate beings, with bodies of flesh and bone, because we believe that Jesus visited the Americas and because of our eternal view, we must be worshiping a different Jesus than they do. I’ve never quite gotten this point.
- Salvation by Works – Critics point to the many commandments and tasks that Mormons do in the course of their worship as evidence that Mormons believe they can “work” their way to the highest degrees of heaven. As opposed to the commonly held view by many other Christians of Salvation by Grace alone; That the shed blood of Jesus and confession of sins saves without regard to any acts, good or bad. This is usually coupled with a “once saved, always saved idea that one cannot lose their salvation having obtained it through confession and God’s grace. Latter-day Saints and many other Christians would disagree with this based on Bible teachings alone.
Here are some of the stated reasons why they engage in this work:
- I’m here to tell you the Truth
- The Church is deceiving you
- The leaders are not what they purport to be.
- The Book of Mormon is fake and written by Joseph Smith
- The church is a cult
- I can help you escape it
- Most of all, I love the Mormon people
Which brings me to:
The New Anti-Mormons
Many of those folks have slipped by the wayside in terms of their real influence in the Anti-Mormon community. Sure there are a few others like James White, Bill McKeaver and Sean McCready. But the latest group of potential Anti-Mormons are different. Not only do they have the benefit of the Internet as their communications vehicle, they also have the benefit of being current and former members of the Church.
Yes, it’s true. That scripture in the New Testament is coming to pass:
“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (Matthew 7:15)
The new crop of Anti-Mormons speak to very different issues than the ones from the past. While many have doctrinal issues, most new critics focus on historical claims which they say the Church hid from them. That have problems with:
- Blacks and the Priesthood issue
- The role of women in the Church
- The Patriarchal Order
- The polygamy issue, particularly surrounding the practices of Joseph Smith
- The historicity of the Book of Mormon
- The historical treatment of Gays and Same Sex Marriage
And while many members have very legitimate questions and concerns about these issues and can take different positions from the Leaders of the Church on these issues and their resolution, these new Anti-Mormons take it a step further. They openly advocate against the Church because of these issues.
They say:
- The Leaders were/are racists and the only reason the Blacks were allowed to receive the Priesthood was because of pressure applied to the Church by outsiders (like the Polygamy issue)
- That the leaders are not inspired and too old to effectively understand and run the modern Church
- That the Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith or others and is not what it claims to be.
- That the revelations surround the practice of polygamy are false and Joseph was wrong to begin the practice of polygamy and Brigham Young was even more wrong for continuing it.
- That the Church and its General and Local leaders treat the women of the Church shabbily and will not give them the Priesthood or any autonomous responsibilities like in the old days.
To name a few.
Again, not to confuse those reading this. There is nothing wrong with the questions members might have about these issues and their legitimate concerns. We all have them. Church Leaders have publically stated that recently. The critics have acknowledged that it was said, but have also said that it’s not really true, adding fuel to the fire.
So who are these critics–The New Anti-Mormons. To begin with, there are several websites and chat sites for former members of the Church where they can converse about their grievances with the Church. The comments range from a single complaint to quite vile outbursts. Their stated mission is to inform those non-members and members with doubts about the “real” truth. Similar to the professional Anti-Mormons of the past.
There are also those with blogs and websites that disseminate information that can be construed as critical of the Church. The most prominent being Mormon Stories and its founder and proprietor, John Dehlin. Many here know John and are familiar with his situation and his websites. As you are aware, he was recently excommunicated from the Church for apostasy. And while many would disagree that he should have been excommunicated or was preaching openly against the Church, I found some of his recent rhetoric to be eerily similar to those of the Anti-Mormons:
This slide was taken from the 2014 Mormon Stories End of the Year Update. His stated beliefs echo many of the same things the traditional Anti-Mormons say.

I know many will not agree with me here. And I will also state that I have derived much benefit and knowledge from many of the Mormon Stories podcasts. John is one of a few who have recently come out in open defiance of the Church. Some, who were members, suffered Church discipline as a result.
So I ask you is John and those like him, the New Anti-Mormons?
Probably. So I guess it’s time to break out the pitchforks and hot tar.
‘Course, the rest of you will have to do that because I find myself in agreement with just about everything on that manifesto you want to ascribe to him.
Thanks for the intriguing post. The transition between “old complaints” and “new complaints” is not as clear cut to me as it seems to be for you. (i.e. I argue that critics are still critical of the same stuff: polygamy, divine origin of the Book of Mormon, whether the prophet of the day is really divinely inspired, that temple ordinances conflict with the “true” gospel, etc.)
Nevertheless, I agree there has been a transition in tactics and effectiveness that the Church is only beginning to counter.
One other minor quibble: Ed Decker served in a bishopric in Issaquah, WA.
The Other Clark,
I don’t disagree with your view, but I see among the newer crowd a leaning away from “you’re not christian” or a cult to issues with history, policy and leadership…..
Sure, Matthew 7:15 could apply to church members. But read with Matthew 15:8 and D&C 121, it could also apply to church leaders who excommunicate people for honestly (even openly) questioning aspects of church history, church structure, and decision-making that threaten those in power.
leaving the question of John Dehlin aside . . . I know several people who are doing some pretty high admin work for the church in opening up countries / doing mission work around the world who believe both polygamy and the phood ban were stumbling blocks to the work placed their from Satan . . . . oh my gosh I laugh hysterically that these people should be considered anti-mormons.
These people are friends with my parents and it was a good day for me when my parents called to tell me they stopped by to visit and asked for a follow up on all the kids. After they told him about my sad departure from orthodoxy and embracing {whisper}mormon feminism{/whisper} they told him I don’t have any issues with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and the actual doctrines of the restoration; I just think that imperfect humans have made mistakes in the church organization. When he responded by telling my parents how wise I was and that he thought I was on a really good foundation to not be led astray . . . I wish I could have been there to see my parents faces. I’m glad my mom called to tell me the story.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe that people can get so hung up on your list of issues:
Blacks and the Priesthood issue
The role of women in the Church
The Patriarchal Order
The polygamy issue
The historicity of the Book of Mormon
The historical treatment of Gays and Same Sex Marriage
that they can’t get over it and leave the church. I just think that part of the trial of mortality of being in the body of Christ of the Restored Gospel is that we have to accept the messed up, imperfect failings of our fellow saints.
In answer to the question – I don’t know. I’m not sure the battle lines you’ve drawn are all that helpful to the conversation, though. I know many people who would definitely agree with your assessment. The problem is the whole “but remember it’s okay to have questions” disclaimer. The line between earnest questioners and your anti-Mormon definition is not very clear *in practice.* There is still a knee-jerk reaction to proclaim anyone who brings up one of these tough issues as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” It makes people afraid to bring up tough issues with friends and loved ones, and honestly drives people online where answers may or may not be reliable (yet always reflect a bias of some sort).
I had questions and wasn’t sure where to turn for answers. I eventually found conflicting answers depending on which bias I could choose to take. I was elated when the polygamy essays came out, yet the reaction was negative when I attempted to share the resource. Only those who had been reading anti-Mormon sites would choose to be troubled by church history, I was told. How in the world is it okay to ask questions when posing the question (or a good resource for an answer) labels you a wolf in sheep’s clothing?
A girl confided in me that she was having difficulty with a different church topic. I told my mom about the situation and she said I was endangering my testimony by talking with her. How can that reaction possibly be construed as supportive of questioning?
Jacob 5: 65-66.
Im not sure if they are the “new” anti-mormon or just a slow raising of the bar. The lord needs a zion people willing to sacrifice all for their faith.
Who are the “Frenemies” of the Church? 😛
The term “anti-mormon” in this context is unnecessarily divisive. It carries a lot of baggage, implying an animus against Mormons as a people. Is someone who concludes that the Mormon religion is hooey and writes an angry or snarky Facebook post really to be equated with the Missouri mob that raped and pillaged in Far West?
I guess this just feels a little bit like someone claiming that anyone who disagrees with the policies of the government of Israel is an anti-Semite. It’s a way to shout people down, to cast doubt on their motives (they must attack the church because they hate us, or are under Satan’s influence), to claim they have no right to share their opinion about the mormon church.
I really don’t see much difference between mormons using the term anti-mormon to poison the well against their critics and outsiders calling the church a cult. Both terms can be defended as accurate definitions, but they are confusingly vague and carry strong pejorative connotations that break down communication and understanding. I wish we could move past them.
The church is controversial by God’s design, it stirs conversation, interest and debate, it get’s people talking about it that otherwise wouldn’t. People take sides; Kristine A’s missionaries grab the high ground, they believe polygamy and the priesthood ban to be works of Satan while Dehlin accrues followers who simply can’t swallow the Kool Aid any more without gagging.
The mortal LDS church is for everyone simply the narrow part of an hourglass. Stay and endure doing your checklist until the end or go and grow.
Who Are The New Anti-Mormons? For the most part today they are people you once shared a pew with but while your shelf sags, theirs collapsed in a feeling of betrayal! Do you believe they simply made that feeling up?
I agree with Joel that the term “anti-mormon” should be discarded. Labeling someone an anti-mormon is not productive or useful. It is in the nature of an ad hominem attack. Instead of name-calling, one should simply focus on whether the so called “anti-mormon” has stated something that is false, misleading, or unfair. If so, then that is what you attack. If they haven’t stated anything false, misleading, or unfair, then what exactly is the problem?
But to answer your question about new church critics, I suspect they tend to be much more secular/atheistic than critics of the past. This is a problem for the church and its apologists, and virtually all religions wither rather quickly under secular scrutiny. In the past, Mormon apologists facing theistic (Christian) critics could point to any number of problems permeating Christianity or the bible as justifications or excuses for similar problems plaguing Mormonism. The atheist just says “a pox on both of your houses” and dismisses religion entirely because of such problems. Mormonism is not defensible from an atheistic point of view.
I think I read somewhere, “I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.”
Labels can serve a useful purpose, but they are often over-used and used too carelessly. But there are wolves out there, so to speak — and there are wolves in sheep’s clothing closer in — and all of these wolves will take great offense at being called wolves.
Thanks for the post Jeff. If we perhaps loose the anti mormon tag and look at people or groups that say or do things that hurt the church, you could put the church itself in that category. We don’t need the Tanners et al to highlight their issues of concern about the church. In many ways the church has made a meal out of it itself. Prop 8, gender issues, women and the priesthood, GLBT issues, excommunication – most of this has, in my opinion, been dreadfully handled. I don’t pretend to believe these are simple issues with simple answers, however we have lost our way and each press conference, each post about the latest excom seems to highlight an increasing inadequacy that the church has to cope with these issues. And with each one, people leave, people speak ill of the church and its leaders – and the so called anti Mormons are left with out a job to do…
The church must
Oops… Computer issue…
The church must pull itself together and clarify its position and response to these and other important issues. Press conferences and anonymous essays and high profile excoms are obviously not working…
ji #13,
Wake up! That’s just more Kool Aid ji!
Common enemies unite groups, enhance the meaning of peoples lives and make you (falsely) feel safer whether they be Anti-Mormons or ISIS. People have a basic need for coherence. Enemies provide this. If we can attribute many of the ills in our lives to our enemies, then we have a stable set of schemas and expectations. We know what to expect, when something bad happens we know who to blame (them, not us). Oddly when we imagine a powerful enemy we actually feel safer! So enemies are created by our leaders both religious and political to bring us together and to accrue power to themselves via our compliance. This is currently being used by government to justify striping people of their rights (safety vs freedom). If there wasn’t a devil, anti-Mormons or Al-Qaeda they would be invented by our leaders for these benefits.
The Savior himself warned against wolves in sheep’s clothing. I think it is good advice.
ji, the Savior was talking about false prophets not anti-Mormons.
OK, so I get you don’t like the term. That is why I tried to address it in the first paragraph. And terminology like “Anti-anything” will eventually lose its meaning when broadly applied. It falls into the same camp as “liberal,” “racist,” and a few other well-worn terms.
It’s not the point. And I didn’t use the term throughout the piece for any other reason than it is familiar. And it involves a particular meaning, which is the point.
Those who speak ill of the Church and its members have changed and their message is different than before.
Let’s discuss whether that it a valid observation or not.
Mary Ann,
“The line between earnest questioners and your anti-Mormon definition is not very clear *in practice.* There is still a knee-jerk reaction to proclaim anyone who brings up one of these tough issues as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” It makes people afraid to bring up tough issues with friends and loved ones, and honestly drives people online where answers may or may not be reliable (yet always reflect a bias of some sort).”
I think you are right to some degree. Many Wards seem to be the wrong place to bring up your questions because some will choose rather unrighteously, I might add) to judge the person harshly for simply having a question. For this, the Bloggernacle is a reasonable and useful place for ask those questions and discuss hard things.
However, mere questioning is not the issue at all. It is the open and defiant advocacy of a position that is clearly at odds with Church doctrine, practice or the Leadership.
For example, how is open public advocacy for the ordination of women any different than the open and public advocacy of polygamy?
Jeff wrote: …mere questioning is not the issue at all Sorry, but the way mere questioning is discouraged and maneuvered around when asked within an LDS building is a major issue and should openness ever break out it will change the church dramatically. Open public advocacy is just the current boundary line that triggers formal discipline. If mere questioning were candidly engaged there would eventually be far less open public advocacy because upward communication would be more efficient and therefore replace open public advocacy.
Yes, it is a valid issue.
“…how is open public advocacy for the ordination of women any different than the open and public advocacy of polygamy?”
Open advocacy (the act of openly pleading or arguing in favor of something, such as a cause, an idea, or a policy; active support) is not what is different. What is different is the dynamics in ordaining women over against those in polygamy. The two are simply not equal (having the same quantity, measure, or value as another). The ordination of women is. The marriage of multiple spouses is not.
After several years of questioning or doubting, people tend to find answers. So what if the answer they find is different then the church position? The must either stay quiet or say what they believe. If a person stays quiet about their beliefs for too long it kind kind of makes them feel like they are dying inside, that they can’t be their true selves at church. At that point they can work to reform the church, or they can find a different faith community. The church is comfortable telling doubters that they can stay in the church, but what will the church say to those who would be reformers? Well if the reformers are too antagonistic it could be non-productive for them to stay around. But many reformers are patient, understanding, and kind people who have unique, valuable, and faithful perspectives on the gospel. Should such people stay at church? Sometimes it seems like the reformers are the church members who care the most deeply about the gospel. The danger for reformers is that they can become too concerned with the “political” aspects of their church involvement. I think it is better for them to maintain a focus on the their personal spiritual transformation and devlopment, and to just set a good example so that others will come to understand that a reformer doesn’t have to be bitter or angry. The truly Christian mode of reformation is to focus on the inner self first and to allow the external world to follow. This is the path of Christ, St. France of Assisi, John Wesley, and others.
The difference between polygamy and Ordain Women is, clearly, that you can be threatened with discipline if you advocate for or against polygamy but you only get disciplined if you advocate for the full inclusion of women in the church.
Alice
when all is said and done, at the end of the day, Kate Kelly is still excommunicated.
Doesnt that say anything to you?
It says to me that we have leaders who are mired in the 50s (and perhaps their rudderlessness given the incapacity of Pres. Monson) and may not have a lot of interest in what the experience of the faithful is.
They’ve evidenced that by their refusal to even consider the issues presented by OW, their statement (which predated OW) that they are no longer willing to read letters from ordinary saints and the complete ideological isolation they’ve wrapped themselves in by assuring that no new ideas penetrate past the firewall of SPs.
Let me see if I can better address your actual question,
The “new” Anti-mormons are people who assert the reason blacks were banned from the priesthood was because of racism….
-I know a church historian that told me she knows the person who wrote the race and priesthood essay and that was his thesis that he wrote. After the essay went through the editing process it was ambiguous enough to draw a different conclusion if looking to do so.
….and they also say the ban was lifted because of outside pressure
-well I don’t trust people who say outside pressure had nothing to do with it at all and I don’t trust people who say it was the only reason the ban was overturned. Outside pressure came in many forms: letters from african saints, reports from brazil on the impossibility of being able to verify “pure” bloodlines, BYU protests, and black members asking for retention help and founding the Genesis group. I would say all of these “outside” pressure came into contact with leaders and certainly influenced whether the items were considered and why and how long. They were issues that had to be addressed.
I could be wrong, but I bet the church historian who actually wrote the darn essay would qualify as anti-mormon according to this definition.
I think Matthew 10:16 is wise counsel: Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the middle of wolves: be you therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
We should be very careful about the sources we use and follow. There will be many wishing and hoping to lead you astray, so don’t be easily led. I trust sources from people who I think are the kind of saints I want to be: Richard and Claudia Bushman, Teryl and Fiona Givens, Armand Mauss, etc. Faithful historians and academics who can research the messy complexities and strengthen others’ faiths.
Jeff,
“It is the open and defiant advocacy of a position that is clearly at odds with Church doctrine, practice or the Leadership.” That is the current definition of apostasy, so many people might mistakenly use it to classify an Anti-Mormon. Calling any individual in a state of apostasy an Anti-Mormon is questionable at best (see #10 Joel above). You can be an Anti-Mormon without ever having been a member of the church, and you can be an apostate without ever earning the label of Anti-Mormon.
“For example, how is open public advocacy for the ordination of women any different than the open and public advocacy of polygamy?” There is no difference if you are a member of the church – both are grounds for being labeled an apostate since both positions have been defined as against current teachings of the leadership. Again, we are defining apostasy, not Anti-Mormon. An Anti-Mormon is someone who, like you said, is trying to help people come to the “Truth,” which will help them recognize the false teachings of the Church in an effort to help people *escape* it. Anti-Mormons aren’t looking to keep people in the church, they are doing everything in their power to eliminate the church and/or get people out. We classify angry mobs as Anti-Mormon, people vandalizing buildings in retaliation for Prop 8 stuff — that’s Anti-Mormon.
Now we seem to be having a good deal of high-profile heretical movements right now, but I’m not sure it’s really all that different from other periods in our history. Your definition of “New Anti-Mormons” tends to describe those people having heretical (non-mainstream) views of a progressive or secular bent. You seem to have omitted heretical views of those on the conservative side (Denver Snuffer, et al). So, is your purpose to label all heretics and apostates under the Anti-Mormon umbrella? Heretics and apostates as possible false prophets I can buy. But Anti-Mormon? You’re gonna have to convince me a little more on that one.
“It is the open and defiant advocacy of a position that is clearly at odds with Church doctrine, practice or the Leadership.”
Can you please define or say where one can read a definition of: open and defiant advocacy; doctrine; practice; and Leadership.
“’For example, how is open public advocacy for the ordination of women any different than the open and public advocacy of polygamy?’ There is no difference if you are a member of the church – both are grounds for being labeled an apostate since both positions have been defined as against current teachings of the leadership.”
Where has *open public advocacy for the ordination of women* been defined as against the current teachings of the leadership? (Is that leadership or Leadership?)
I am a member of the church and here and now advocate for the ordination of women, if it is God’s will, which I believe it is. If it is not, I want to know why not, and I plan to continue advocating until reasons that I can understand, explore and try to have spiritually confirmed are given for not doing it.
So why is no one in Leadership labeling me an apostate? There are hundreds with public profiles advocating for this. Why are they not being labeled apostate and actions taken accordingly?
@wreddyornot #30: Elder Oaks, in the Priesthood session of the October 2014 conference delivered a sermon that made it unmistakably clear that advocacy for the ordination of women was contrary to Church leadership.
IMHO, this is why Kate Kelly’s disciplinary action didn’t occur sooner. (The leadership needed to get on the record the current policy, and give her an opportunity to “toe the line.”)
My apologies for the threadjack.
Regarding the original post, I guess I agree with Mary Ann in #29 that the current crop of ex-mormons are more accurately termed heretics rather than Anti’s.
Putting aside debate about the term anti-mormon, I think one could say that the church and its critics influence each other, and are influenced by the culture. There has been a rise in secularism generally in the US, and so people who leave the church are doing so more and more for secular reasons. Also, the church has downplayed some of its more unique doctrines and allied itself with the Christian right, so that has perhaps reduced the evangelical anti-mormon proselyting.
The rise in New Mormon History has also very much shaped the debate. It used to be about whether Mormonism was compatible with the Bible. But now it is more and more about historical accuracy, truth claims, events. The internet has democratized these discussions and made it harder for the church to control the narrative and conversation. The broader debate about Christianity and religion in general also undermines the common ground that mormons used to be able to stand on with their critics.
There has always been a high burn rate in the church, and while in the past most defectors just went quietly away, now that the world is so interconnected it is easy to build communities, share opinions, and tell personal stories. If you define anti-mormon as anyone who publicly expressed an opinion critical of the church, you’re going to have a lot more anti mormons because it is so much easier to express that view to a broad audience. But that seems very different than the evangelical pastors of past generations who were very much fighting for the souls of men. Todays “anti mormons” are more about telling their stories, supporting each other, and challenging and countering what they perceive to be false and harmful claims put out by the church and its members.
The Church will never lack for critics. Indeed, I’d rue the day where the LDS Church and its members get TOO popular. Though it’s not necessary to respond to EVERY criticism, there is definitely interest. There are the stories of many whom once strove against the Church who became its most ardent members.
Of course, the Apostle Paul was the ultimate in “Heel-Face-Turn”, but it took the Savior Himself to rent the Heavens to shake him up. Obviously it was an important occasion for the Savior to intervene.
Even among ostensible allies, there can be frictions which we can choose to let divide or we can learn from each other. The best example was, believe it or not, in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation (the two-parter, “Unification”)
Spock: In your own way, you are as stubborn as another captain of the Enterprise I once knew.
Picard: Then I am in good company, sir.
Live long and Prosper, Leonard Nimoy…
As to the post: sticks and stones may break my bones but words (e.g. “the new anti-Mormons”) will never harm me. But don’t expect me or others not to call people who do so out as bullies.
The Other Clark said “…made it unmistakably clear that advocacy for the ordination of women was contrary to Church leadership.”
Could you, The Other Clark, please be more specific and precise as to the pertinent language *you* think made it so unmistakably clear?
I’ve read that talk numerous times, and it’s been covered all over the bloggernacle (e.g Steve Evans at BCC: This is an hard saying; who can hear it?; Ziff at Zelophehad’s Daughters: What Elder Oaks Did and Didn’t Say to OW; Julie M. Smith at Times and Seasons: Elder Oaks on Women, Priesthood, and the Temple; Joyce Anderson: Women and the Restoration of the Priesthood at The Millennial Star, and the pertinent comments in all of these posting, just to name a few.) Mormons are all over the map on the question you say is so unmistakably clear.
I see no clarity as to: Have the leaders inquired of the Lord in prayer about the gender inequality relative to female ordination to the priesthood? A yes or a no seems straightforward. And why if an answer was given by God? Please, let them answer so people can begin to have an opportunity to attempt a spiritual confirmation. Knock, seek, find.
wreddy-
I hope I didn’t come across as a bully; I certainly didn’t intend to. (Also I don’t want to threadjack the OP, but I will anyway 🙂
From Elder Oaks:
“Only men will hold offices in the priesthood.” and in subhead 5, “The Lord has directed that only men will be ordained to offices in the priesthood.” And yet again, quoting the “inspired words” of J.Rueben Clark, “[Women]are not bearers of the Priesthood; they are not charged with carrying out the duties and functions of the Priesthood.”
As you are obviously aware, Elder Oaks talk is open to interpretation, but I find that directive clear enough for me.
Eventually the new Anti-Mormons reveal their true nature. One need look no further than Kate Kelly, a media opportunist caught in many deceptive and contradictory statements playing to the National Media to build up her own image and following. She recently described her true feelings toward faithful members of the church in an Op-Ed: “…only the least talented, least articulate, least nuanced thinkers, least likely to take a stand against abuse, and the least courageous people thrive in the Church today.” When anti-mormons talk and talk to extend their 15 minutes of fame, eventually their true nature peeks out through the carefully crafted rhetoric.
#30 wreddyornot – my statement about the relationship of the public advocacy of women’s ordination to apostasy is based on the excommunication letter to Kate Kelly: “The problem is that you have persisted in an aggressive effort to persuade other Church members to your point of view and that your course of action has threatened to erode the faith of others.” Her point of view being the ordination of women. This was the justification her church leaders gave for her excommunication on the grounds of apostasy. This, along with the definition of apostasy in the June 2014 First Presidency letter (repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine), is what informed my opinion that public advocacy for the ordination of women has been used in the past as grounds for apostasy. Whether public advocacy of women’s ordination *should* be used as grounds for apostasy is a moot point in this discussion. I was pointing out to Jeff that public advocacy for women’s ordination could not be used to define an Anti-Mormon, though some could use it to define apostasy based on the events of the past year.
What really is “anti”? I once believed that anything written against the church was “anti”. Now, with far more understanding and knowledge of historical facts, and not so much the feeling of being picked on by the outside world, I no longer equate THE TRUTH with something perceived as “anti”. Joseph did marry a 14 year old. There were 120 people killed at mountain meadows. We did discriminate against the blacks by using a single obscure verse to back it and we have discriminated against those of same sex attraction. The book of Abraham is nothing more than a common funeral text, etc etc. Those stories and facts are not anti. Just the truth. The once persecuted has now become the persecutors. Sad.
No, I don’t think you came across as a bully, The Other Clark, and thank you for your very specific reply relative to Elder Oaks’s precise words in that talk you were referring to. I, too, have no wish to further thread jack, so I won’t. I could discuss Elder Oaks’s verbiage and the history and authority behind it, but that is not the intent of the posting, which was defining and discussing who the new anti-Mormons are.
The post attempts to justify ad hominin rather than stick with facts and reason, does it not? In that sense it seems to me to encourage bullying.
Mary Ann, thank you also for replying. I certainly don’t want to speak for Kate Kelly; she is more than capable of doing that for herself. I hope you have availed yourself of what she and others on her behalf have said more fully. I agree the “female ordination” (although I’d term it differently than that — as in taking the female ordination issue to God for revelation and greater light and knowledge) issue seems more an element (a small one) of apostasy for the Leaders than it being anything anti.
It seems obvious to me C. Rider that you indeed have looked no further than small blurbs taken out of context that you erroneously argue indicate something that they don’t. If people are doomed to a nature, true or not, there is no agency. I feel very sorry for you if you think it’s really about fame and ego and, as you say, true natures.
There’s a lot to disagree with here, but I’ll just leave it at this. I’m uncomfortable with any definition of anti-mormon that would encompass Emma Smith. The label should only apply to those whose intent is to destroy the church, not those who love and want to build the church but who have serious reservations about some teachings.
Jeff-enjoyed-
Those who profess to be members of the church are increasing in our day. Following is a view from the scriptures that puts what is happening in our day in perspective.
(Book of Mormon | Helaman 4:8 – 15)
8 And thus those dissenters of the Nephites, with the help of a numerous army of the Lamanites, had obtained all the possession of the Nephites which was in the land southward. And all this was done in the fifty and eighth and ninth years of the reign of the judges.
9 And it came to pass in the sixtieth year of the reign of the judges, Moronihah did succeed with his armies in obtaining many parts of the land; yea, they regained many cities which had fallen into the hands of the Lamanites.
10 And it came to pass in the sixty and first year of the reign of the judges they succeeded in regaining even the half of all their possessions.
11 Now this great loss of the Nephites, and the great slaughter which was among them, would not have happened had it not been for their wickedness and their abomination which was among them; yea, and it was among those also who professed to belong to the church of God.
12 And it was because of the pride of their hearts, because of their exceeding riches, yea, it was because of their oppression to the poor, withholding their food from the hungry, withholding their clothing from the naked, and smiting their humble brethren upon the cheek, making a mock of that which was sacred, denying the spirit of prophecy and of revelation, murdering, plundering, lying, stealing, committing adultery, rising up in great contentions, and deserting away into the land of Nephi, among the Lamanites—
13 And because of this their great wickedness, and their boastings in their own strength, they were left in their own strength; therefore they did not prosper, but were afflicted and smitten, and driven before the Lamanites, until they had lost possession of almost all their lands.
14 But behold, Moronihah did preach many things unto the people because of their iniquity, and also Nephi and Lehi, who were the sons of Helaman, did preach many things unto the people, yea, and did prophesy many things unto them concerning their iniquities, and what should come unto them if they did not repent of their sins.
15 And it came to pass that they did repent, and inasmuch as they did repent they did begin to prosper.
Something like a paraphrase of a recent Laurel Thatcher Ulrich quote is what I hear after reading this post…
People may be comforted in the short run by boosting levels of ingroup identification, but I don’t think that leads to growth or to effective action. The answer isn’t to replace the familiar cast of characters in simplistic cautionary tales with hyperlinked blogposts naming fresh new contemporary institutional threats, but rather to begin telling better stories that touch the issues Mormons really care about.
In other words, the better question to ponder would be: What are the new Mormon concerns?
I’ll suggest one: If I cared about the future of the Mormon project, I would be very concerned that younger Mormons belong to a networked generation that is highly resistant to cultures of impunity. This audience will not be receptive to stories about “consequences” that seemingly flow in one direction only, downstream to rank-and-file members, believers, thinkers, doubters and excommunicants. If the LDS leadership wants to retain a generation known for oversharing, it will need to tell stories about shared accountability.
“Can you please define or say where one can read a definition of: open and defiant advocacy; doctrine; practice; and Leadership.”
See Kate Kelly and John Dehlin…..
“I am a member of the church and here and now advocate for the ordination of women, if it is God’s will, which I believe it is. If it is not, I want to know why not, and I plan to continue advocating until reasons that I can understand, explore and try to have spiritually confirmed are given for not doing it.”
I have no problem with the idea that God can change the program and allow Women’s ordination. I’m just as OK with that as you appear to be.
I suggest if you really want to know why, you should go to the source sincerely and seek an answer…..
Mary Ann,
“You seem to have omitted heretical views of those on the conservative side (Denver Snuffer, et al). So, is your purpose to label all heretics and apostates under the Anti-Mormon umbrella? Heretics and apostates as possible false prophets I can buy. But Anti-Mormon? You’re gonna have to convince me a little more on that one.”
Yes and no. I didn’t use that term, it actually didn’t occur to me at the time. But I think I do agree.
I used John Dehlin as an example, I could have easily used Denver and others. but I thought the post was too long as it was….
I also used the term Anti-Mormon because of the emotional and historical value of it. Clearly, it doesn’t always fit perfectly and I do like Heretic.
We have a resident one here at the blog……
#39 wreddyornot, thank-you for the polite reply. I did not mean to be offensive in my posts, though afterwards I could see why you took issue with what I said. Yes, I do try to keep informed on the views of those on all sides of these emotionally charged issues. I do not personally agree with the goals or tactics of the OW movement, but I have no reason to doubt the personal revelation many supporters have felt prompting their involvement.
I like you too Jeff! 😉
I think you bring to light some interesting thoughts.. Although I think what you call this ‘New’ Anti-Mormons may not be so much anti-Mormon as they are those who are simply loosing faith.. People like John Dehlin apparently no longer believe in God per se.. or are agnostic. This is probably due in part to the vast amount of information available on the internet, which is causing people of all walks of faith to doubt.. and consequently these doubters manifest themselves in people like John Dehlin and Mormon stories..
But I submit that Anti-Mormonism has it’s root going back to the 1600’s with struggle between Calvinism and Arminisim. If we look at most of the present list of Anti-Mormon ministries, there is a Calvinist ministry at it’s heart.
When someone becomes disaffected in their faith, they often find allies with the ideological opponents.. LDS doctrines have a lot in common with Armininism, the arch-rival of Calvinism and the true Anti-Mormons..
The John Dehlins of the world are simply the victims of doubt.
Jeff – pretty good OP on “Contro-Mormonisimo”.
As for why most self-styled “Evangelicals” that bash the LDS faith bring up the “Another Jesus” trope stems from II Cor 11:4. IMO, it’s a bit mis-applied, since the Apostle Paul admonishes the Corinthians that they should ‘bear with him’. I’m not up on my Greek enough to determine if he was employing hyperbole, as the phrase ‘another Jesus’ would imply, but it would make sense. In effect, Paul was encouraging patience in dealing with those who were in doctrinal error. The take of Evangelicals towards Mormons is anything BUT ‘bearing with him’, but rather, as the ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’. Over the years when some self-professing “born again” Christians would learn of my LDS beliefs, some merely expressed disappointment (like a co-worker going through her own divorce whom otherwise might have wanted to date seriously), but many with outright hostility, as if somehow I were carrying a communicable disease.
My impression is that the gay community is the new ‘home’ of anti-Mormonism more so than competing religious views. Of course, we differ with the militantly gay activists in that they promote sodomy and we proclaim it an abomination before the Lord. Methinks those views aren’t going to get reconciled anytime soon.
I liked Mr. Spector’s essay, and I found a lot to agree with. Regarding the claim that Ed Decker was “in a bishopric” — is there actual documentation to substantiate that claim of his?