https://bycommonconsent.com/2006/11/29/six-anti-mormonisms/

Pay Lay Alol

Interesting article.

RFM definitely represents the "Circus Sideshow Anti-Mormons."

Disagree? Just read the board.

That being said, Mormonism is a total crock. But not in the uninformed, cartoonish way too often portrayed, permitted, and apparently encouraged here.

Meh

If you don't think RFM is right about that, then you are obviously one of those suckers born every minute.

According to the Search Function, this P.T. Barnum really was born yesterday.

It's hard to believe that PTB actually reads this board. The basic content here is greatly different than PTB's characterization. Even those who point out ridiculous things that Mormons do, say, and believe generally do it with too much evidence to lump them into that superficial category.

However, the definition of circus sideshow anti-Mormons lists behaviors which seem to apply to Mormon apologists much more than to most members of this board. So perhaps PTB has just gotten confused about which group is which.

What about the anti-mormons who are just happy to have left mormonism in their wake?

Humans like to make up and assign types to other groups of humans. It makes thinking easier.

I read all of those descriptions and don't consider myself to be party to any of them. Which is why I'm no longer a Mormon: I'm an individual.

My concern about the church is the same as my concern about the government, about people on the bus, about the accounts payable department at my clients' businesses, about those drunk guys who hang out in the park, about the rattlesnakes that patrolled the tall grasses surrounded my old California farmhouse:

***Don't f--- with me, mind your own f------ business, chill out, and everything will turn out just peachy as far as I'm concerned.***

Putting people into boxes is a fun hobby for the folks doing the putting but is rarely relevant for the folks thus put.

I only gave it the glance it deserves, but failed to see what is bemoaned repeatedly on this board:

The Q.

Period.

Sure, many of us have gripes against individual mormons, mostly family members, who have hurt us, who wouldn't? The main gripe about that, though, is that they are mindlessly following

the Q.

The Q gather the members around themselves, like terrorists using human shields, and proclaim, "The Antis HATE YOU TOO!"

Uh, no. Most of us are anti-Q, not anti-mormon.

I hate and detest what the Q do to members, so while the Q and their evil minion, the Apologists, try to convince mormons that they should strap life-bombs on and sacrifice all that is moral and good for the sake of The One True Living Q, I'll go on pointing out how evil the Q are.

The members are nothing like the Q. The former give, give, give, while the Q would take the very substanance of a widow(er) in poverty to continue living high on the hog.

Please. That list misses the primary definition and cause of "anti" behavior. That list is calling for members to keep the corrupt and greedy Q cult-boat afloat.

The Q boat is sinking, and they need to be bailed out. If they don't keep thier BICs, all they will have left are needy people, who will soon see that the Q are all about taking, not giving.

None of the above.

"Circus sideshow anti-Mormons" don't have "genuine points of divergence" with Mormon doctrine.

Who decides if the opposition has genuine points?

I think the Mormon leaders are the ones under the circus tent. They're the freak show.

donbagley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Circus sideshow anti-Mormons" don't have "genuine
> points of divergence" with Mormon doctrine.
>
> Who decides if the opposition has genuine points?

Evidently the poster P. T. Barnum

No one can be put in a box as suggested by the article. Sure you can generalize, but there are a million exceptions to every generalization. This kind of stuff also makes it easier to look down on others because they are in this or that box.

What is the overall point of the article?

I guess it's impossible to simply be a non-Mormon.

If you're not with them, you're against them?

I would say there is a little bit of me in each of these categories except #6 (Physical Persecution). I am not a violent person and have never physically attacked a Mormon.

There are so many reasons why we know the church is a fraud it can be opposed from many different angles.

This was my exact thinking. There wasn't an all of the above! Except for the last category--physical violence, which the other pointed out was rare in the US today and circus sideshow--the only category not defined with any specific examples because it is a caricature, I fit, at least loosely into all the categories. i agree, Mormonism can be anti-ed from so many angles!

I did appreciate the author's reasonableness in this article, though. When pointing out that Mormon's often view anti-Mormon's with the alarm that post-WWII Jews reacted to antisemitism, implying that Mormons' basis for such a strong reaction is in any way comparable, I thought, "Here we go." The "select," bestest people under God, are going to patronizingly explain why everyone is jealous of them and are out to get them.

But the author was trying to be realistic. For example, when describing the physical anti category, they pointed out that this was rare in the US, and was restricted to say, militants in Peru who attack missionaries as symbols of US imperialism. Or pointing out that groups who oppose Mormons politically are similar to Mormons who wouldn't vote an atheist or Muslim into office.

Yet, overall, by failing to engage in the arguments of any of these groups, the article managed to smooth over the issues, normalizing dissent. Nothing to see here folks, you can look at the antis in the zoo, and you might even be one, but keep your mouth shut about it because you don't want to be excommunicated over an inconsequential thing like disagreement, do you?

Always find it interesting when Mormons try to figure out former Mormons. This article seems to want to fix some misunderstandings, however, still wants it all lined up in categories that sound like they have validity, but really don't.
We all, however, have one thing in common: we do not believe the claims as valid. I don't think most Mormons understand that!

I don't like the categorization of people. It is just to simplistic.

I haven't believed the truth claims of the church for many decades but I have never been ANTI-Mormon.

I suspect he will insulted by this lame and unoriginal attempt at parody.

My take is the author may well be a deep-cover shill for LDS, Inc. That moniker--Nelson Seawright--is pretty ghastly and adolescent as well.

BTW, as I noted here years ago, I'm not anti-Mormon per se, I'm pro truth...

And in terms of being an ex-Mormon (although I was never baptized but did make Eagle Scout in an LDS Troop), I am definitely multi-generational.

And when I do occasionally slip over into the "anti" camp, I trust I will be recognized as the "truthtelling" species of heretics.

Roasted Tomatoes?

https://bycommonconsent.com/jns/

Pay Lay Alol

"instead, this kind of anti-Mormonism has largely been represented by third-world guerrilla groups such as Peru’s Shining Path, who attack Mormons as symbols of US imperialism. There seem to be relatively few analogues to this form of anti-Mormonism within the Mormon community. The clearest and most famous exceptions would by the Mountain Meadows Massacre killers, although the Danites in Missouri may also fit in this category."

Is he saying the mormons of the MMM were antimormons??

Exactly, Pista. This has always been one of my major gripes with tscc. it seems as though anyone who is not a TBM is labeled as "anti-" as a way to group all the other, in many cases, more accurate, prefixes together, to include former-;ex-;non-. Why is it always assumed that any of these(in many, if not most, cases) more accurate prefixes are automatically perceived by Mormons to equate to "Anti-", approximate to a synonym?

I would perceive most of you exmos on this board as one of his first 3 types or a combination of all 3. I did feel that each of his six kinds contained glaring inaccuracies and erroneous perceptions/assumptions. I, too, detected a bit of arrogance on the part of the author.

I'm okay with people labeling me "anti-Mormon" because I am. Mormonism is false and people should know that. A quick look at history gives a 99% chance that it was all made up by a skilled conman. Yet millions of people around the world and especially here in Utah defend it and insist it's the most important thing ever. And that's just stupid.

Anti= opposed to, or against.

When it comes to Mormonism, i'm both. I have decades of experience and generations of family that are mormon. IMO, that gives me credibility. I know more about mormonism than most people would ever want to know.

I'm Anti, opposed, and against the moron religion. I have many reasons and all of them are valid. I'm not going to settle for being labeled as this or that kind of Anti mormon. It doesn't matter.

Mostly because I don't save-and-cache a lot of my RFM work. I do with serious writing; the trouble with RFM is it's a fairly limited forum and doesn't offer much financial incentive (but hey, I did get a comped meal at the Exmormon Conference two weeks ago; there were a few extra. Thanks Madame President).

I consider this one of my better works, however, and others have agreed:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,5317,5781

"Oh Man, That Ain't History, That's Mormon Smear"

>Anyway, when I came here, I was probably the furthest thing from an "anti-Mormon" in terms of wanting to vilify the LDS culture. Even though I hated the influence of the LDS Church on Utah politics, I'd just spent a number of years in therapy with a TBM therapist who helped me immensely with issues attendant to sober alcoholism, and he's still a valued friend.

>I had read "No Man Knows My History" as well as Taylor's "Nightfall at Nauvoo," and I had little respect for Joseph Smith, but I did regard Brigham Young as a powerful figure in history I felt deserved my grudging admiration.

I've changed my mind about Brother Brigham in the intervening 15 years. He was a poorly educated, delusional fanatic who masked his depredations under a messianic cloak.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2016 02:59AM by SL Cabbie.

Antitheist.

Mormonism has often used the expression "Hardened their Hearts" to describe nonbelievers in Mormonism who have closed minds to their message. Yet, TBM Mormons refuse, even for the sake of discussion, to ever open their minds wide enough to ponder whether or not everything they practice, preach, teach, and believe is actually true. They believe it so, naturally, it is true. This is not only being closed minded it is obviously blind faith.

The designation "Circus Side-Show" is dismissive and condescending to those who use RfM as a healing process. Many who have lost their spouses, children, extended families and even livelihoods due to the judgments made about them by TBM Mormons (ie.religious intolerance) aren't so much interested in finding Mormonism untrue as they are interested in finding a place to have their legitimate concerns heard. Since Mormonism destroyed the very core of their lives, why should they not want to see Mormonism take responsibility for what it has done? This is so much more than a nuance of "anti-Mormonism". It is a cry for justice.