For some time now I’ve been wondering (and I dare say worrying) whether or not others might justifiably label me an anti-Mormon. I came across a definition today that allayed my concern somewhat, but I want to post it here and see if people agree with it.
From the pamphlet Defending the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — A Reference Guide by Wayne D. Arnett (a joint publication of FAIR and SHIELDS):
bq. Anti-Mormon: One who opposes, attempts to find fault with, and passes judgment on the beliefs and faith of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ by way of lectures, pamphlets, books, films, etc.
So, do you agree with the definition? Whether you agree with the definition or not, would you label me an anti-Mormon? Why or why not? Don’t be afraid to be brutal.
Joey…anti-mormon…oxymoron.
From my conversations with Joey, no Joey is not an anti-mormon.
Joey, neither of us would consider you “Anti-Mormon.”
Additionally, something about the definition of Anti-Mormon that you found doesn’t feel right to us. Personally, we would reserve that title for people who attempt to destroy Church members’ faith by publicly attacking the Church and focusing on its faults (can anyone name one earthly organization without faults?) while giving little or no weight to its well-established strengths. Anti-Mormons also tend to provide unsupported, incorrect, or twisted information about the Church’s doctrines and teachings.
We found a definition on the wiki that seems decent:
So, you aren’t Anti-Mormon…yet ;). Keep studying your Book of Mormon…and you can avoid the “doctrinal misrepresentation.”
That deserves two quotes:
Hmmm…interesting idea, Aaron. I could have sworn the Book of Mormon taught something about Nephites, Lamanites, and Jaredites as ancient Americans, something about Christ appearing to them after his resurrection, something about war being acceptable for certain reasons, something about Christ needing baptism because everyone needs baptism, something about Christ’s Church needing to have Christ’s name in it, and something about a Prophet named Joseph who would restore the gospel and bring the Book of Mormon to light when the Lord started gathering his people again. Those are just a few of the significant historical and doctrinal teachings introduced in the Book of Mormon. Who is Kurt Widmer anyway? (I looked for a bio or something and couldn’t find one.) Perhaps he is guilty of some of that “doctrinal misrepresentation” we are talking about.
You do make a good point, however, with your second quote. No one should assume that all LDS doctrines are found in the Book of Mormon. If Joey (or anyone else) wants to avoid doctrinal misrepresentation of Mormonism, he should focus on (and quote from) all of the sources I provided in my Mormon Literature comment; he should avoid quoting from other sources or using them to represent Mormon doctrine.
Finally, the Book of Mormon will always be the strongest starting point for understanding Mormon doctrine. It is the foundation of LDS theology, and it is “the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion” (Joseph Smith). Personally, I agree with your first quote (only) when it says that a belief in the divine origin of the book is necessary. It’s impossible to believe that Church doctrine is true without first believing that Joseph Smith was a Prophet. The Book of Mormon proves that he was.
From my experience, “anti-Mormon” is a handy little tag which is far too often used to dismiss an argument when logic fails. Strictly speaking, anything which contradicts Mormon theology and doctrine could be considered “anti-Mormon” — even though the disagreement is friendly. But the person using the term gets to define it in this case.
I love Mormons but I strongly disagree with them. Some would call me (and have called me) “anti-Mormon” because of that. Others have enough sense to see that the disagreement is not personal, but doctrinal.