My post about why I left the church generated more traffic than I ever dreamed of, and an overwhelming positive response. Many encouraged me to keep writing and paid me some flattering compliments. I thank you all for this. Writing is something I've always wanted to do, but the bug seems to be fickle for me, as well as the time and inspiration. This encouragement has been invigorating, and I may just rededicate myself to the effort. I do feel I should warn those with expectations, future writing will likely depart from the topic of Mormonism. There are many volumes that could be and have been written on the topic, by minds much greater than mine. For me, I feel as though it will be flash in the pan. The church was a big part of my life, the wounds are fresh, and the obsession is strong and active, but my lasting passion is wild plants and mushrooms. If I dedicate my time and talents to writing, I feel it would be better applied to realizing that comprehensive online catalog to accompany my educational services that's been in my head for so long. I suspect I will have a few more posts like this one before it fades into the background for me. As news and controversies come up, I may come back again with comments, but I will not likely commit to this topic. Just a prediction, don't hold me to anything, life always has a way of catching me off guard.





Before I do write any more on this topic, I want to address the names I will be called, one in particular, for being vocal about topics related to Mormonism from the outside. I hope you enjoy my perspective on the term "anti-Mormon". It's not one of the ones I said "I could write another post on this" about, but it's a disclaimer I feel needs to be made before I dive into this again.





Labels





Labels are a double-edged sword, aren't they? They can be used to shut down discussion, marginalize people, even dehumanize them. On the other side, they can be freeing and help unite like-minded, or likewise afflicted people. Having the effect of finally giving a name to something we've been struggling to find words to explain. They give you a short hand way to describe your perspective on topics. What's the difference? Perhaps mostly in the way they're used? Probably even more in whether you adopt the label yourself or it's hurled upon you as an accusation or condemnation.





Some labels I use to describe myself and my perspective are:





Bisexual , or queer if I want to be specific about the fluidity and unpredictability of my sexual preferences without going into too much boring detail.





Mentally ill , or bipolar, or borderline. I'm not sure these are technically labels, as the appropriate way to use them is I have, not I am.





Agnostic atheist , though I usually just shorten it to atheist to save time, as that's the most relevant part in most conversations. Humanist may sometimes be more appropriate.





Libertarian , politics is endlessly complicated and I'm constantly reevaluating, but I always find my comfort zone somewhere on this spectrum of individualism.





Vegan , I know there is a spectrum here too, and some may call me plant based instead because of the flexibility I allow for peacemaking or practicality purposes. I believe in putting my species first in matters of survival, but as much as is possible, I respect and protect all sentient life.





Forager , I also like weed-eater because it amuses me. Wild foodie may be the most accurate. Also, wild food educator or ecological educator, but these may be more job titles than labels.





Cat person , I love all animals, but as far as cohabitation, I prefer the company of cats.

My jellybean, when he was itty bitty.



Unschooler , radical unschooler, peaceful parent, or just mom.





More to the point, apostate . This is my favorite label to describe my post-Mormonism, because as an atheist, I find it satirical. I'm amused by the prospect that I'm to be banished to outer darkness with Satan, his followers, Judas Iscariot, and Cain. Not much is said in Mormonism about outer darkness. Maybe it's better than my would-be righteous destiny of being an eternal baby making factory in some douche bag, little g god's harem. This is a loaded term, though, and most do not enjoy having it thrust upon them. Self-describing is separate from name calling. Although I would still be amused if someone described me this way in a contentious context, the intent would not be lost on me.





There are many labels used to describe people who've left the LDS church. Post-Mormon, ex-Mormon, former Mormon; these are often used interchangeably, and there is some disagreement in how they differ, if at all. My understanding is most people would put ex-Mormons in the category of those who disagree strongly with the church and may even decide to speak against it. Post-Mormons have moved on and no longer consider the church to influence their lives. Former Mormons are typically considered neutral, or anywhere on this spectrum. Like I said, this is my general perspective, there is no consensus on the definition of these terms, though all of them are not typically considered offensive or inaccurate.

Then there's the derogatory ones. I touched on apostate, but here's why it's so loaded. The church teaches of people in personal apostasy:





These are all scriptural references taken from the topical guide under the subject "personal apostasy". Some may seem outdated, or reaching, but given we are taught to liken the scriptures unto ourselves, and our time, I think it's a decent foundation for how LDS people are taught to view individual apostates. I could easily go through general conference talks for more on how we are painted, but I did that somewhat in my last post, and it's not the label I really want to discuss here today.





The hateful, anti-Mormon label





I don't personally know of anyone who self identifies this way. If there is someone, please let me know and I will make corrections. {UPDATE: I have been corrected. Apparently, there are many former members who feel this term describes them in a positive way. So keep in mind reading the rest, I'm speaking of my perspective on the term only} This label is as far as I can tell, universally derogatory and offensive, and is used only by the church in propaganda and mind control (see the last post ), for the purpose of establishing us vs. them viewpoints. Let's break down what this term might actually mean, and how it's used.





Merriam-Webster defines anti as: "one that is opposed", and Mormon: "the ancient redactor and compiler of the Book of Mormon presented as divine revelation by Joseph Smith" or "latter-day saint; especially a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".





The church uses the term "anti-Mormon" to refer to those , or materials produced by those who are openly critical of church doctrines, policies or practices. So this term is linguistically inappropriate and misleading. I believe intentionally so, as it furthers the persecution complex as used in cult mind control tactics. Latter-day saints are purposely being made to feel personally attacked by any LDS related information that is not approved doctrine. They and the church are one, attack one, you attack both. Many true things, that the church now owns up to, in the past have been written off as "anti-Mormon lies". The seerstone in the hat , is one of many examples. That's another thing, within the church "anti-Mormon" is synonymous with "dishonest", or "untrustworthy". It truly is a derogatory term.

For those of us who fit the church's manipulative and made up definition of anti-Mormon, do we fit the actual definition? Are we opposed to Mormon, the ancient redactor and compiler of the Book of Mormon? Speaking for myself as an atheist, and probably for religious and spiritual people of other denominations, I see no point in being opposed to a fictional character. I may have opinions about fictional characters, but opposition would be a waste of time and energy and yield no results. As for people who oppose the church, but still believe in the book of Mormon, they probably wouldn't be opposed to him either, as he's one of the story's protagonists.





Of course, this is not what the church is trying to imply. The second one is more fitting. They want latter-day saints to think that we are opposed to members of the church personally. I can't speak for everyone, but I can take an educated guess that if anyone actually does fit this definition, they are a tiny, tiny minority of what the church calls "anti-Mormon". As for me, I mentioned several times the high opinion I have of church members in my last post . In my opinion, they are among the most loving, selfless, and kind people humanity has to offer. Many of them are highly educated, intelligent, and thoughtful. They are talented, skilled and resourceful, and use these traits to better their communities and serve their fellow men. I'm sure I've met some I don't personally care for, but I've never met one worthy of opposition. When we oppose harmful practices, it's exactly those members, and would be members that we have compassion for. That compassion is truly what motivates us, not Satan.





Quoting myself from my last post on this point, because it's easier than coming up with a new way to make the same statement:

"I don't want to be an enemy of the church, and I feel no drive to crusade against it. I do however, feel a sense of responsibility, especially when people are being hurt, because I was an active part of a hurtful structure for so long. I think former members are in the unique position of being the only both informed and objective voice about the church. Never members may study it but have no personal experience. Current members have both studied it and had personal experience, but although they may be intelligent and articulate people, they are programmed with the above method, and are not currently able to think critically and clearly about the subject of the church. They also are not allowed to speak publicly about the church in a negative way, or they risk losing their temple recommend or facing excommunication. So yes, when issues arise like the Bishop case, or LGBT issues, or bishop interviews with youth about masturbation, where people are being hurt, many of us feel compelled to speak out. If we don't, who will? Who can?"





I don't want this to be taken as condescending. I was a member, I do not think that they are weak or weak minded at all. It's difficult to get the point across that someone is being influenced by mind control, without it being taken personally. Elder Holland demonstrated this in the BBC documentary , when the interviewer brought up how the church was sometimes called a cult, Elder Holland said emphatically, "I'm not an idiot" and then, speaking of himself ,"This man doesn't seem like a dodo." He misunderstands, as many do, cult members do not have to be idiots or dodos. Being the victim of emotional abuse or mind control is not an affliction reserved for the weak or small minded. It's been used by religions, governments, businesses, and individuals widely, and often, all throughout history. We all share the same basic neurological structure, and we are all vulnerable to falling prey to cult or narcissistic mind control.





So, what are we opposed to, those of us the church deems "anti-Mormon"?





We are anti:



Did I miss anything? What I am opposed to falls in the category of ideas, concepts and establishments, not people or groups of people, and not individuals.







Perhaps anti-Mormonism would be more appropriate? Mormonism is not technically a word, but urban dictionary offers this definition:

A colloquial term encompassing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While the term was originally a pejorative invented by persecutors of the Church, it has since become largely acceptable and is even used among some Latter-day Saints.

the only path to happiness and everyone else is wrong and/or evil. I think I can just circle back to my original point here. The only way to be certain you are not going to be taken as hurtful, hateful, or derogatory when using a label on another person, is when it's one they've used themselves to self-describe. I've yet to meet someone who self describes as anti-Mormon. Doesn't completely describe me. I don't condemn anyone's culture and lifestyle, if it works for them and all involved are informed and consent without coercion. I only condemn the assertion that their path to happiness ispath to happiness and everyone else is wrong and/or evil. I think I can just circle back to my original point here. The only way to be certain you are not going to be taken as hurtful, hateful, or derogatory when using a label on another person, is when it's one they've used themselves to self-describe. I've yet to meet someone who self describes as anti-Mormon.









Just call me apostate, but not evil apostate, Jonathon Streeter got to that one before I could.





The real "anti-Mormon" liars



In the spirit of fairness, I want to briefly cover one small group of individuals that maybe, might be deserving of a derogatory label. The church casts a wide net with their slander of LDS critics, but there is an element out there that makes us all look bad. It's this same element that fed into the carefully cultivated confirmation bias for me when I was a member. It was easy to believe that everyone who fought against the church was being led by Satan the father of lies, when the opponents who were the most visible, the loudest, the most aggressive, were obvious liars.



In the course of my studies coming out of the church, the heavy load of truth was so much that it did away with all the programmed loyalty and allowed me to let go. I wondered why anyone would need to lie to discredit the LDS gospel. It didn't take me long to figure that out. These are not rescuers, come to save you from a mind control cult, these are poachers, come to steal already softened and prepared cult members for their own. They can't tell you what is really wrong with the LDS church, because their church is just as wrong with slightly different packaging.



I could go point by point tearing apart their nonsense theological arguments, and show you countless videos of them screaming outside general conference and arguing with temple patrons like kids fighting over a favorite bedtime story, but I'm bored with them already. Also, I have friends who left the church for other forms of Christianity, and I don't want to offend or seem like I'm generalizing. What I am very sure of, is the person most qualified to make decisions for an individual is that individual. And every individual deserves the full and uncorrupted truth from which to base that decision. For me, the healthiest choice is atheism, for another it can be something entirely different, all I really care about is honesty and ethics.



To demonstrate what I'm trying to say, this is the definition of the word "cult" according to dictionary.com

1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies. 2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult. 3. the object of such devotion. 4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. 5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols. 6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader. 7. the members of such a religion or sect. We could also go more in depth on what constitutes a cult by referencing Steven Hassan's model as I covered in the last post, but let's just hold this in contrast to what these outreach ministries say the definition of the word "cult" is:





"In a Christian context, the definition of a cult is, specifically, “a religious group that denies one or more of the fundamentals of biblical truth.” A cult is a group that teaches doctrines that, if believed, will cause a person to remain unsaved. A cult claims to be part of a religion, yet it denies essential truth(s) of that religion. Therefore, a Christian cult will deny one or more of the fundamental truths of Christianity while still claiming to be Christian." Every belief structure on earth aside from these people's specific denomination of Christianity would fit this made-up definition. These are Westboro baptist types, spewing their venom and abuse in the name of hating who god hates. Really, projecting the ugliness inside themselves on to a mythical construct so they don't have to own it psychologically. Reasonable people of all faiths as well as non-believers rightfully look down on these people and what they represent. They give Mormon critics a bad name, they give people of faith a bad name, they give humanity a bad name.



Changing the definition of words to fit better with their agenda is one of the problems with the LDS church, and really serves to demonstrate how these groups are equally deceptive. So I wanted to give the LDS church their due by acquiescing, yes, anti-Mormon liars do exist. However, they are the vast minority, and do not represent all of us. We don't appreciate being conflated with delusional liars any more than Mormons like being conflated with Warren Jeffs and the FLDS. In fact the very reason many of us left the LDS church was so we wouldn't be associated with dishonesty and mystical absurdities.



On that final note, I want to assure you that I really am serious about this honesty thing. If I ever publish anything about the LDS church or any other topic that you know to be false, please bring it to my attention. If I have indeed made a mistake, I will promptly apologize and publish a complete correction. Truth is the whole point for me here.

See what I mean?