Good point.

Better yet "Why I Think You Fear Us Mormons".

Why me, in terms of offense I think you miss the point. The rift began with the Mormon declaration, supposedly voiced by God, that all Christian chuches and those who believed in them were an "abomination". Hardly the way to win friends and influence people.

Protestants could never hope to be as anti-Catholic as Mormonism is.

I think you are presuming something about me, perhaps that I have been offended at anti-Catholicism? I'm not. You should realize that I am a convert to Catholicism from atheism, and a pretty solid anti-religious form of atheism at that. I can empathize with anti-Catholics. I can't empathize with people who claim to be Christians yet spend their time trying to make other people act a certain way rather than following the Way, which clearly defines how we should treat those who trespass against us.

In short I would be more inclined to be impressed if this article leaned towards showing mercy and forgiveness for "anti-Mormons". I don't think a LDS individual would understand the concept, at all, of "offer it to God".

That is what I see.

It is an example of Mormons trying to repeat Alma 18:20-21. Mere attempted mind-reading. I could write "Why I feared Mormons" much better. But I doubt he would want to read it.

No doubt.

Internet Mormons have made me paranoid more than once. Those were individuals though, with stalker behavior, and the "mind-reading" thing going on....spirals downward to "bearing false witness", which I understand can be ok for Mormons to engage in, in some circumstances.

Do you think this newspaper article is in that category?

"Our religion teaches that you have to accept our religion so you can believe your will get into what our religion teaches heaven is."

I mean, how can you not be persuaded by dogmatic circular reasoning like that?

From my journal, February 20, 2003:


Not only is Spencer Fluhman someone I respect tremendously, but he is the reason I am doing a degree in American religious history right now, as he was the first person to put the suggestion into my head. He is very knowledgeable of the history of anti-Mormonism and someone I am inclined to take seriously, even when I disagree with him.

And in the case of this article, for parts of it, I do disagree with him. It's something I'll maybe elaborate on in a blog post if I have time.

(BTW, the title may not have been selected by him. Editors often select titles.)

Real quick, there are a few things I didn't like:



This is unnecessary, pointing out hypocrisy doesn’t really address the issues raised by the “Anti-Mormons” and just treads on the genetic fallacy; that pointing out flaws in accusers somehow deals with the substance of the accusations, which he really doesn’t, he just leaves it as “ Oh yeah? Well you too”




Block formulae testimony bullet point.




!?! You got an editorial in a major paper and you want spend precious ink psychologizing people you don’t know?

To my knowledge, headlines are written by editors and I don't think NYT would have made an exception here.

I re-read the article after reading your post but it still seems that the title flows very naturally from the article. I don't think it mis-characterizes it in any way.

In my re-reading, it strikes me that the article could have been written from exactly the opposite perspective, the model minority now has its first viable US presidential candidate, but some people still make fun of them. In fact, I've personally noted a trend in the bigger city press to speak kindly (too kindly, in my opinion) of Mormonism and take it seriously. Instead, the article was one long "poor me."

For a long time Mormonism has had this "two headedness" about itself. We're model but denigrated. But here, there was only one head, everybody's picking on me.

When the article does turn to a positive, it comes across belligerently, well everone picked on us, some were disloyal, but we just kept growing. (Except there's real questions about whether it is growing.)

This is the old style of presenting Mormonism, something DCP would feel comfortable with. The article isn't in the image of GBH upbeat PR.

I don't think the largest newpapers have done a very good job of trying to look a Mormonism in more depth. They have just turned to the inside insiders. Will we see a NYT, LA T WashPost or WJ blog from Mauss, Brooke, Quinn, Steven Benson? Hell, I'd love to read what Kish would have to say.

Looking forward to your blog post, will you link it? And good luck with your US religion degree. Some of the most pleasant days of my life were passed studying that field.

Are we going to see another BYU-connected head rolling down State Street past the temple?

Should that be dis-connected head?

Should that be dis-connected head? [/quote]

The figurative guillotine has been active of late. Will this gentleman be the next victim?

Or, it could be a legitimate comment about how Mormons have been used as the Other against which a normative Protestant American identity was shaped. That isn't really a controversial idea, but it receives insufficient attention in the midst of the joys of Mormon-bashing.




Maybe, but it is uncharacteristic of LDS triumphalism to acknowledge any of the bad news. It is also simply true that the LDS Church grew quite a bit. That's what having all those kids and sending out all those missionaries does.




You don't think it makes a village atheist feel rational, ergo 'good', to contemplate the absurdities of Mormon doctrine? I thought Bill Maher's laugh track was all about that.

Spencer Fluhman said "Making Mormons look bad helps others feel good. By imagining Mormons as intolerant rubes, or as heretical deviants, Americans from left and right can imagine they are, by contrast, tolerant, rational and truly Christian."

His words seem like BS to me. The teachings of Mormonism make American Indians look bad. This American Indian News Media article was not "anti-Mormon".

When Fluhman said "Americans from left and right" he obviously did not mean the American Indians. Mormonism says they are idle, lazy, filthy, loathsome and cursed. Do Mormons think that those teachings make Indians feel good?

I understand that the administrators of academic institutions are wary of Mormons. This can be problematic when people believe Mormons come with a built-in set of prejudices, such as a thing against homosexuality. This can play a special role in academia where the faculty and administration value the avoidance such prejudice.

Yes, but I don't think he stated it as well as you did. Throw in how Mormons also shaped themselves against normative Evangelical American Protestantism, while accomodating to it when needed for survival and became a model yet ridiculed minority, and you'd have a real article.

As is, I still think it comes across as whiney.

Very true on all accounts, but I have to say that the thoughtless ease with which media figures have trashed Mormonism in public lately has been breathtaking to me. And, you might have noticed that I am not an avid admirer of the LDS Church.

Isn't the whining even a little understandable?

Indian Country Today has also run another series http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.c ... ica-113852 of six articles which voice the incompatibility of Mormonism with the Native cultures.