01.01
This question has been handled more exhaustively by other bloggers, but I want to take a stab at it. The question is personal to me, because I have occasionally been accused of anti-Mormonism (with this blog being cited as evidence).
In a recent Facebook discussion about racial insensitivity in the Book of Mormon, one of my cousins called me a “confused” and “angry” apostate. He said this site is “one-sided”, and full of “half-truths” and “war room spin.” My immediate family and several LDS friends came to my defense, saying that they’ve always found me sincere, well-meaning, and respectful. But I suspect that many others who read that Facebook thread quietly agreed with my cousin. So in this post, I hope to explain why I blog about and criticize Mormonism. Then we’ll discuss whether I satisfy the definition (or rather, definitions) of anti-Mormon.
My first project at this blog was the “Why I Don’t Believe” series. I anticipated people dismissing it as anti-Mormon, so I began the series with an explanation of my motives. I’ll quote them here, because they also apply to why I blog about Mormonism more generally.
The basest motivation behind my “Why I Don’t Believe” series is simply an interest in Mormonism. It’s said that you can leave Mormonism, but Mormonism can’t leave you. In Utah, at least, that’s pretty true. Mormonism is all around you and you can’t escape it even if you want to. Most days, though, I don’t want to escape it. I enjoy studying and discussing Mormonism; it’s a fascinating religion.
Perhaps the primary reason for this project is to get people to reevaluate their religious beliefs. While I disagree with several teachings of the LDS Church (the emphasis on obedience, the rhetoric against homosexuality, etc.), I don’t think Mormonism is a uniquely harmful religion. So my opposition to the LDS Church has less to do with any one particular doctrine, and is instead about the very nature of faith.
Our culture is wrong to venerate faith as a virtue. Believing in something for which there is no or little evidence—or worse, believing in something despite contrary evidence—is not admirable. In fact, beliefs untethered to reality are often dangerous (case in point: September 11th). To be sure, not all faith manifests itself as violence. The real danger with faith is that, by faith, anything can be justified.
In every other facet of life except religion, we demand evidence of people for their beliefs. Were I to tell you that I walked on water the other day, you would rightly be incredulous. Yet Christians—and I include Mormons here—profess that a man did just that (walk on water) nearly two millennia ago in the backwater of the Middle East and the only reports we have (the gospels) were written several decades after the alleged event by anonymous authors who were not themselves eyewitnesses. Why the double standard? Religious beliefs ought to receive the same scrutiny that other beliefs do. No, religious beliefs actually merit more scrutiny, because, as Carl Sagan said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
I oppose any false belief and all dogmatic thinking. The reason I target religion is not that it’s necessarily the most dangerous dogma. The political dogmas of Nazism, Stalinism, and Maoism claimed more lives during the 20th century than did religion. It’s just that religion, unlike other belief systems, remains largely unscrutinized. That’s why opening a frank and civil dialogue about religion is so important.
Also, that I give particular attention to the Mormonism in this series does not betray an animosity toward that religion. Mormonism is just more relevant for my group of friends and I’m in a better position from which to critique it given my familiarity with it.
If I don’t dissuade anyone from Mormonism, I hope that at least this conversation increases Mormons’ understanding of why people leave their church. Offensive misconceptions abound about ‘apostates.’ The LDS Church tends to divide ex-Mormons into two camps: those who were offended by a church member and those who leave to pursue a life of sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll. These descriptions may aptly describe why some leave, but, in my experience, countless more leave over legitimate concerns about Mormon history and doctrine—the very issues I will explore in later posts.
Later in the post, I explained how my challenging Mormons about their beliefs is actually a sign of respect.
Criticism is not a sign of hate. The opposite, in fact, is true. “The way you respect a person,” to quote secular philosopher Austin Dacey, “is not by agreeing with everything he or she says, but by holding that person to the same intellectual/moral standards to which you hold yourself. Anything less is not respect, it’s indifference. So sometimes in order to respect religion’s peoples, we must critique people’s religions.”
This point should not be lost on my LDS friends. Some Mormons spend two years of their lives proselytizing. And why? Because they sincerely want to share with people “the good news.” The truth is a gift; it would be selfish to keep it to oneself. Likewise, I don’t try to disabuse my friends of their faith in order to win debates or rob them of happiness. As a matter of principle, I just believe that people deserve the truth.
At times the truth may be difficult, like discovering that one’s faith is unfounded. Leaving the LDS church is a painful experience for many. Still, there is something liberating about the truth—about seeing the world as it really is.
And because I would be challenging others’ beliefs, I invited people to return the favor and challenge mine.
I make no pretenses at being objective. I’m an ex-Mormon and atheist; my thoughts about the LDS Church are doubtless filtered through those lenses. But in recognizing my biases, I hope to temper them. To that end I could use your help. I want to hear your thoughts, questions, and (especially!) criticisms. Because absent your input, my “Why I Don’t Believe” series won’t be a dialogue, but a monologue. So hold me to the highest standard of fairness and accuracy. And where my arguments fall short of that standard, let me know and I will make the necessary revisions.
I don’t like being proved wrong (who does?), but I prefer it to holding erroneous beliefs. As such, I try to be amenable to criticism. I substantially revised a post about the First Vision(s) after a Mormon friend disabused me of a bad argument, for example. So while I wouldn’t deny my cousin’s point about my being biased (we all are), I nonetheless try to be fair and accurate.
Now that you have a better idea of why I write about Mormonism, I’d like to address the accusation that I am anti-Mormon. Because this term means different things to different people, I asked my Mormon friends on Facebook to define ‘anti-Mormon.’ Below are a few responses that I feel typify the various definitions.
An anti-Mormon is someone who not only disagrees with the teachings (doctrine, history, or whatever) of the Mormon church, but also makes a conscious effort to attack Mormons and pull members away from the church.
Similar to an anti-Semite. This applies when a person treats Mormons differently based solely upon their religion. This person may also actively seek to destroy the LDS church through lies, distortions, and government policy.
An anti-Mormon is someone who harbors hate for the church, or individual members solely on the basis of their being a member of the Church.
If all it takes to be an anti-Mormon is to make a conscious effort to pull members away from the church, as the first definition suggests, then I’m guilty as charged. I don’t think this definition is adequate, though. I mean, are LDS missionaries who make a conscious effort to pull people away from, say, Catholicism necessarily anti-Catholic? I don’t think so.
I agree with the last two definitions that anti-Mormonism entails a degree of animosity toward Mormons. That’s precisely why the term ‘anti-Mormon’ stings; it invites the unflattering comparison to historically violent prejudices like anti-Semitism.
Mormonism may be among the least popular religions in America, but I don’t think it is hated. So save for Christian counter-cultists, secular anti-theists, and some gay rights activists, I think the moniker ‘anti-Mormon’ is overused and largely undeserved. I for one do not hate Mormons, as anyone who knows me can attest. I have even written several posts quite favorable to Mormonism.
Could I be fairer to Mormonism at this blog? Probably. Again, despite my honest efforts, I make mistakes and my biases can get in the way of thoughtful analysis. But instead of dismissing this blog with convenient labels like ‘anti-Mormon’, I would ask that LDS readers help make it better by critically engaging my arguments.
So very well articulated. I hope that nonbelievers and LDS alike can take this message to heart.
I have often referenced this blog because I think it provides a service for members. Every member needs to reflect critically on their faith from time to time. This I believe is part of the faith and testimony building process. The only way to avoid blind faith imo. I really appreciate the respectful tone in most of your posts. It is rare to find an ex-mormons so articulate and yet respectful. I think past experiences with people genuinely bitter at the church clouds member’s abilities to listen, consider, and respond to critical statements made about their faith in a thoughtful and respectful tone. I for one do not consider you an anti-mormon.
I think a similar discussion on the definition of anti-Mormon literature would also be interesting. I have read critical articles that were well researched and had a respectful tone, but also read articles that have made me feel sick and angry.
Good post. I read some of the facebook thread and then saw the comment count and decided to go outside.
“war room spin” Well okay.
I think another part of the definition has to come from personal identity. The missionaries aren’t anti catholic, they are mormon. I’m not anti mormon, ex mormon, post mormon, mormon in recovery or whatever else, I’m Will. Mormonism has a part in my story but doesn’t define it, doesn’t define who I am anymore. Mormons are not defined by opposition to catholicism either. A good analogy is the abortion debate. They are not anti- they are pro-, they oppose something (the killing of an unborn child, or the restriction of the killing of an unborn child) because it violates what they stand for, what they hold as part of their identity. I think with Anti mormon, just like Anti semite, you have the identity as basically opposed to something rather than for something else. It becomes animosity, so its fitting that that becomes part of the definition, I think because it is the identity and so it takes so much energy that comes out as animosity.
Its like the phrase “if you put as much into x as you do y, you could really accomplish something.” If they put as much into being something rather than being against something they would do more.
Perhaps a good example of an anti mormon is the old lady who runs the small (its in her house) bookstore around Main street and 1300 south in Salt Lake (by the baseball park). Her entire store, her entire personality, is opposition to mormonism, regardless of the arguments or whatnot. She doesn’t sell books FOR anything, just against.
Of course, Kleiner has a good point about all things, no matter how wrongheaded, striving for some good, being for something, whether here its ego or self promotion or whatever, but I think if that striving or good is so one dimensional and one way then the shoe still fits.
I find it very refreshing, and very hope-inspiring to see something like this from someone else local. I was born and raised here in Utah, the son of two black sheep of mormon families. As such, I’ve always had a very different viewpoint, being one of the only Utah-born atheists, constantly surrounded by mormon culture.
All too often, someone claiming to be an atheist is really just a religious zealot hiding behind some sort of “non-religion” religion. Bashing and attacking people simply because they choose to have faith in something, holding up Origin of Species as some sort of atheist bible. And in doing so, they become the thing that they seem to dislike the most: a closed-minded fool, judging people on the sole idea that they are one of “them” rather than one of “us.” To me, there is a fine line between not believing in God, versus believing that there is no God. Both are classified as atheists (as least in this culture), and are abhorred just the same.
Which is, I think, one of the main problems that is found in Utah. There is such a strong culture/counter-culture divide, that it seems that people must choose a side, or else have their side chosen for them. Either you are a “member” (insinuating that it’s some sort of secret club like the Masonic order….. nevermind, bad example), or you’re a “non-member.” You’re one of us, or one of them. There is no distinction, no middle ground, and no room for understanding or compromise. The lines in the sand have been drawn already, all that remains is choosing where you stand.
It is very difficult to have a respectful, and intellectual conversation regarding ones beliefs and, moreover, questioning the reasoning or motives behind such beliefs. All too often it becomes personal. It goes from a scrutiny of a held set of beliefs, to a series of personal attacks. I enjoy seeing a blog such as this because it tries to uphold that common ground, holding to intellectualism and respect, rather than ignorance and arrogance.
Jon, you’re a strong communicator and sensitive to the feelings of Mormons who visit your blog or read any of your posts. That anyone would consider you anti-mormon suggests that some throw the word around when they hear something they’d rather not believe. It spares them the faith challenging exercise of researching their own religion and examining faith with a critical eye. I did just that for many years. Almost as slippery to define, homophobia, is also swung about blindly by the queer community and their advocates. I did so at one time while arguing the politics of the gay rights movement and I think it’s a good point to bring up to someone who is all to eager to label respectful criticism of the LDS faith as simply anti-Mormon.
As a side note, the point you made about LDS missionaries not being anti-catholic was particularly strong. Many times I’ve found myself confronted with the (rather idiotic) notion that I was Anti-Mormon because I questioned the rationality of their faith. It’s a point I expect to find useful for some time.
Thank you.
It was pointed out to me by a friend that Mormons have a persecution complex based in their history of the 1800′s. Persecution of Mormon beliefs and culture is a basic assumption of the faithful Mormon. Any criticism of Mormonism is not a part of a discussion, but it is always a persecution.
Yes, Vince. I very much agree. But all groups, to some extent, like to play the victim.
True. True.