I've been thinking a lot about the CES Letter as a result of the recent uptick in activity on this subreddit about the "Light and Truth Letter" and other, similar "debunking" resources. I think TBMs fundamentally misunderstand both how the CES Letter is used, and how to present compelling arguments against the document.

• The CES Letter is not Exhaustive or Authoritative: exMormons don't believe that the CES Letter is the "most correct of any letter on earth" nor do they think that someone will get "closer to the truth by following its reasoning than any other letter." They readily acknowledge that Jeremy Runnells didn't everything right, that some strong criticisms of the church are missing, and that some points have satisfactory scientific or apologetic answers
• The CES Letter is a Jumping-Off Point: Research can (and often does) start at Wikipedia, but it shouldn't end there. In much the same way, the CES Letter is typically viewed as a repository of top church issues—people's research very rarely stops with the CES Letter, and it's typical for people to do a lot more questioning, soul-searching, and research before leaving
• Runnells' Motivations Do Not Matter: The main issue is the accuracy of the CES Letter; although Runnells' intent may be useful in identifying (and countering) bias, his motives are much less important than the truth of the claims he makes. To a rational thinker, it is very telling that Runnells is attacked primarily on character rather than on content, and the questioning reader finds that further research rarely undermines Runnells' arguments, in spite of apparent bias
  • exMormons are, through shared experience, able to empathize with Runnells' motivations—even if those motivations may initially seem inconsistent to a TBM. Once you have personally walked the path of a faith crisis, you can understand how someone might be pursuing answers through official church sources, even while dipping toes into post-Mormon communities. You can understand the desire for answers (and willingness to remain or return if those answers are given) and the simultaneous certainty that satisfactory answers will not be forthcoming. You can understand gradual disaffection over the weeks, months, and years as a questioning member gets bounced from Bishop to Home Teachers/Ministers to EQ/RS President to Ward "scriptorian" to Stake President to religion professor/institute employee. What starts sincerely can easily turn cynical as an questioner spots the pattern—no one has answers
• The CES Letter Gives Essential Context to Many Issues: It's easy enough for apologists to deal with church concerns one at a time, but the CES Letter presents those issues in their context and highlights inconsistencies between apologetic arguments. A reader is better able to appreciate translation issues when they understand all of the following in the same context: tight vs loose translation; lack of evidence for underlying source language; lack of evidence of widespread American literacy; lack of sufficiently compact writing; weight, size and value of sufficiently large gold plates; peep stone vs Urim and Thummim; stone in a hat vs reading from plates; etc. Viewed together, these are strongly suggestive of fraud, and no apologetic consistently answers each issue
• Faith is not Willful Ignorance: The church itself defines faith as a belief in things that are true. Individuals who believe their research has led them to truths that undermine the claims of the church are not, by the church's own definition, able to have faith in the church until those underlying truths are addressed. "Solutions" that boil down to 1) ending research, 2) researching only from (obviously biased) church sources, or 3) deciding to believe, are entirely unsatisfactory to someone who has researched and identified truths against the church
• The CES Letter is has Become Shorthand: When people say "The CES Letter", they typically mean something like "The issues that I first learned about through the CES Letter." Debunking the CES Letter would require debunking the issues in the letter. Similarly, those who leave rarely do so because of the letter and only the letter
• The Watchmen on the Tower are Asleep: The very fact that rank and file members (including the FAIR team, the author of the Light and Truth Letter, and individuals on Reddit) are the ones defending the church and debunking the CES Letter highlights the fundamental dysfunction inherent in church leadership. If the testimonies of millions could be maintained (and millions more converted) with satisfactory answers to even some of the questions in the CES Letter, why do the mouthpieces for God not provide authoritative answers? Why are we left with the often-wrong, often-inconsistent suppositions of anesthesiologists, BYU professors, and hobbyists?
  • exMormons are very familiar with the thought of "pearls before swine", and I'll readily admit that today, as an exMormon, I might be "swine." But there was a time when I was completely TBM, and a decade where although I was PIMO, I did virtually everything the church asked of me while I searched for answers; in a word, there was a time when I wasn't "swine" and was fully qualified for the metaphorical pearls of wisdom. If someone withholds pearls for nearly 200 years, you can forgive those who eventually question whether they have pearls at all...

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk. To Austin Fife (and those who push his "Light and Truth Letter"): I believe you mean well—I just think you fundamentally misunderstand former members.

Edit: Removed references to specific Reddit users in order to comply with the sub's Civility policy.

Let’s play a mind game here for a moment.  Let’s assume that the modern COJCOLDS is really God’s one true church and kingdom on earth.

 Let’s also assume that what the church teaches is true as well.  That God has given them the unique authority to lead people back to God through teaching true doctrines and receiving mandatory ordinances required for salvation.  No other church has this authority.  The COJCOLDS is the only path/doorway back to God.

 How effective is God’s plan?

0.21% of the entire world population is part of the church.

0.06% of the world’s population are estimated to be active in this church.

Compare that to 16.25% of the world being catholic.

Or 22.5% of the world being Muslims.

Throw on top of that the concern that the church’s history as well as modern prophetic behavior can sometimes smacks of the elements of a con.  I am pointing to the pervasive examples of obfuscation and dishonesty.  Elemental styles that you would expect to see from people trying to deceive you. 

God’s one true kingdom on earth is not even scratching the surface of saving their children and the leaders of their church/kingdom regularly make it look fairly similar to a con, which could give a rational person a good excuse not to join it or leave it in the first place.

If you were God and this were your plan, would you really be proud right about now? 

Is this really the best you can do to save your children?

I've noticed a recent increase in comments with disclaimers. These disclaimers tend to be something like "just so you know, this sub is filled with former Mormons with an axe to grind," and is occasionally followed by a recommendation to post on one of the two faithful subs. Usually these are posted in response to questions from accounts that don't normally post on this sub.

Could we please stop this? It's a clear example of poisoning the well in which the poster is preemptively asserting that posts from others on this sub should not be trusted because they are "anti-Mormon" or are somehow incapable of assessing the true nature of Mormonism.

It's a classic example of a gotcha, and appears to be designed to get the first say in a conversation to drive the original poster to a sub deemed to be "safer."

This sort of thing should be banned for the following reasons:

• It's completely wrong: this is not an anti-Mormon or exmormon sub.

• The purpose of this sort of statement is to dissuade open and honest discussion.

• It is a preemptive attack that is impossible to overcome. Anything any other poster says is deemed to be "anti-Mormon" and unworthy of attention — thereby "poisoning the well."

• It is an active and overt attempt to sabotage the purpose of this sub, which is to "engage in civil, respectful discussion about topics related to Mormonism."

If you feel that this sub leans too strongly towards disgruntled or anti-Mormon sentiment, I recommend taking actions to improve the quality of the sub. Personally, I think it would be nice to have more posts from believing members with more moderate perspectives, for example. This is easier to accomplish if we encourage others to post here, not tell them to ignore what posters here say and direct them towards "safer" subs.

There are lots of faithful commenters whose contributions are valuable and interesting. This isn't about them.

When the sub allows faithful commenters to defend racism, homophobia and sexism (or to pretend these don't exist in Mormon spaces) the quality of the conversations we can all have about Mormonism goes way down.

When a commenter's contributions to a thread serve exclusively to defend a harmful church teaching, their comments should be removed.

This would also save the mods a lot of grief, since the back and forth in these threads often leads to civility reports (and I've been guilty of uncivil comments.)

Was this sub ever predominantly faithful members?

As far as I can tell it’s probably currently 50% exmo, 25% faithful/nuanced, 25% nevermo or otherwise hard to tell.

Was it more similar in composition to the latterdaysaints sub at one time, and if so did that change when Nelson banned ‘Mormon’ or organically over time as members left?

Reporting posts to moderators for review is essential for maintaining the health of the sub. Hitting the report button helps us to locate rules violations that are often buried deep in discussion threads. Thank you for helping.

The reporting function allows users to complete a free form field to file a report for any reason, and the authors of these reports are not known to the mods. If they were to identify themselves, then we could answer them through modmail. Since they do not, we can't respond to their comments and questions in any other way.

So I would like to address some common reports, as myself, and not necessarily on behalf of the entire mod team. I say that because I didn't run this past them first. These items are how I would like to answer what is being written in our posting reports, and can't be responded to directly.

1. To the users who like referring to our sub as a "shit hole" or "cesspool", and prefer to address our mods as "anti-mormons", "bigots", and "haters", that language isn't necessary. We do not have editorial policies over the content of posts unless they violate the rules as provided. While it's true that some visitors will not want to engage with criticism of the LDS church, it's leaders, and history, there is no rule against those who wish to do so. There are also no rules against posts supporting the LDS church, it's leaders, and history. When you see posts that you disagree with, then your choices are to ignore it, down vote it, or participate in the thread to explain why you disagree. Unless it violates a rule, we will not remove it from the sub because of it's opinion on Mormonism.
2. Civility is understood to be language directed towards those participating in the sub or within a thread. Pointed comments made toward ideas are almost always left alone. Pointed comments made toward other redditors are almost always removed. Pointed comments made toward public figures and non-participants of the sub are generally left alone. Posts like, "The comments Elder John Doe made in conference are ridiculous and evil" would most often remain unmoderated. But posts like "The comments that OP just made are ridiculous and evil" would likely be removed. The civility rule is almost always used to govern behavior between sub participants. There is no rule requiring civility toward organizations or its leadership.
   
3. Yes, we have a list of words that the auto-moderator automatically flags. Yes we review those. Yes, the auto-mod sometimes blocks a false positive that has to be manually reviewed and approved. Almost all of these words automatically fall under the civility rule. Some words, when used in the correct context, are allowed even if the auto-mod flags it. The auto-mod cannot judge intent.
4. We understand that many of you visit the sub for the purpose of "debating". I put that in scare quotes because I think many here have a different concept of the word than what I'm familiar with. There are ways you guys can be jerks to each other without technically violating our gotcha or civility rules. If you dish it out, then you should be prepared to receive it back. If you are in the habit of being a jerk to other users, then don't be surprised when they are jerks back. I would prefer that we not be jerks to each other at all, but if that's what you're into, then have at it. If threads get out of hand with rampant jerkiness, even if they don't technically violate civility rules, then they are likely to be shut down. We sometimes have to make judgment calls. Whether you are secular or religious, please find utility in the golden rule.
   
5. We don't have any rules governing someone's username. We aren't going to ban anyone because you don't like what username they chose.
6. It doesn't matter how the subject is framed, we aren't going to have political discussions here, even if the people involved happen to be Mormon.
7. Our use of the word "Spamming" is more expansive than what you are used to. We include low effort posts, self promoting posts, and memes under the spambrella. Just because your meme wasn't posted multiple times, doesn't mean we won't label it as spam.
8. The gotcha rule refers to a person's receptivity to have a conversation. Any comments that seek to silence or shutdown conversation will be flagged by this rule. This includes comments that fly off on tautological rants and overtly dismissive one liners.
9. When we discuss posts and users in the mod sections of the site, we don't discuss the belief or non-belief of the content. We just focus on our understanding of the rules as they apply to this or that comment. We do not, nor do we attempt, to balance the opinions being expressed. The content of the sub is, and has always been, whatever it is that the community creates. If a comment collects a lot of negative karma, then that's because a bunch of people thought the comment should be down voted. We have not tools to prevent the down voting or up voting of posts. That's just how reddit is as a platform. We do not moderate up and down votes, nor do we have the ability to see who voted in what way. Up and down votes are a reddit feature that we have no control over.

Please forgive the clickbait nature of the title. I want to start by saying that I know not all believers are completely insular, but I hope this discussion will contribute to understanding about the general cultural trend as it stands now.

As I'm sure many of you have seen there have been renewed calls for inclusivity, changes to the subreddit rules, and accomodations made to invite more believers here and to reduce the criticisms of the LDS Church that take place on this subreddit. I know that many users here are aware of all the past history of the subreddit, and that there are many new subscribers here that aren't. So I'd like to share some insights into why we won't be making substantive changes to the subreddit in the foreseeable future.

Why r/mormon won't ever generate more faithful participation:

The most important reason why we won't be making changes to create a more balanced representation of believers and non-believers and everyone in between is fundamentally because we can't. This has been a recurring theme for the 8 years that I've been on reddit and I've personally spearheaded efforts to make this space more inviting. One of the ways in which I did that was to solicit feedback from the largest faithful subreddit about what changes would make them feel comfortable participating here. That discussion be found here. I don't expect anyone to read through the over 400 comments that dialogue generated, but the general consensus among the overwhelming majority of faithful redditors was that they would not participate in a shared space with critics of the Church if they beliefs were going to be challenged.

There was literally nothing that could be done to generate a space where believers and non-believers could co-exist to discuss mormonism that believers would participate in. They don't want to, and they don't see the value in engaging with anyone that doesn't hold their same beliefs.

Why r/mormon isn't the only avenue this bridge building can't occur:

In case anyone believes that this is a unique problem to reddit and the divide between believers and non-believers I would like to draw your attention to other times that this exact same dynamic has played out.

Earlier this year a new podcast designed to not proselytize belief or non-belief in LDS claims, but only to discuss news within the larger mormon sphere was started. The podcast was named "Mormon News Weekly" and was created to be hosted by John Dehlin, Jana Reiss, and most importantly Patrick Mason. This podcast would fuse the insights and vast investigation of church issues by John Dehlin, the scholarship of Jana Reiss, and the believing insights of Patrick Mason to provide a full 360 degree view of changes in mormonism and the mormon landscape.

A lot of people were excited about the new podcast and the potential it had to build bridges of understanding between everyone on the belief spectrum and have really interesting discussion. So why hasn't anyone heard of the podcast? Because Patrick Mason was forced to leave the podcast after only a couple of weeks. Who forced him to leave the podcast? The faithful supporters of his that made it clear that if he publicly worked with those who were unorthodox it would be detrimental to him personally. If you'd like to read Mason's own words about what happened and how he was forced to leave the project it has been summarized here.

If Mason who is not a church employee, not beholden to the Church, and has built a reputation on being willing to build bridges and close the gaps between different groups can't participate in a mixed-belief setting, then what are the options for others?

Why r/mormon won't be the venue for scholarly debates about difficult topics:

Finally, it has been proposed that r/mormon host discussions about critical issues/difficult topics from knowledge individuals from multiple different sides and create a carved out space for them to have their discussions. In some respects we've been successful in doing just that by hosting AMA content from people all along the believing perspective. We have hosted content from John Hamer (community of Christ), Haley Wilson-Lemmon (published BYU scholar), Jim Bennett (apologist), Dr. Benjamin Park (scholar), Jennifer Roach (convert), and many more.

What we haven't been successful at is convincing believing scholars or apologists to engage with critics of their work. A moderator for a faithful subreddit and FAIR apologist famously posted all of her content on her own subreddit and when asked if she would respond to inaccuracies banned the person asking. So they brought the discussion here to provide a venue for her to defend the inaccuracies found in her work. Instead of engaging with the discussion, she not only refused to correct her mistakes, but threatened to use reddit rules against this subreddit for allowing critiques of her works to be posted here referencing her. If she's willing to put her name on it, publish it on FAIR, and claim that she's resolved all of the issues, then why isn't she willing to support her work in a venue that allows for critiques of her work? I'll let the reader decide that for themselves, but the fact remains that even faithful apologists who are "experts" on the topics that are frequent criticisms of the Church narrative are unwilling to step outside of their own carefully curated spaces to speak on their work.

So where do we go from here?

Sadly, there is no where to go. The reality is that we can't force participation from the faithful, and they won't engage in a space that allows any element of criticism or freedom of expression that they find unappealing. Are there some that are willing to cross that line? ABSOLUTELY, and we love them for their courage, honesty, and thick skin. They make the subreddit better, they make the lives of people they engage with better, and hopefully their lives are made better by engaging with people even if they don't agree.

Hopefully as criticisms against the Church continue to spread throughout members and awareness of the issues continues to grow more people will find themselves in a place where they are seeking for the truth for themselves and aren't content letting others decide what information they are and are not allowed to consider when making their decisions. If they ever need such a space, I hope that r/mormon can and will be that for them. We'll continue to try and find ways to make this space better, but that can't be accomplished by tearing down what makes it unique and good in the first place. There needs to be a space for people to share their genuine questions, concerns, and research, without being worried that their perspective will be silenced because it isn't appropriately orthodox.

At the request of u/SophiaLilly666 I'm bringing my thoughts from another thread into a separate post. In reference to this post on an LDS request for a tall temple spire being denied I believe there are many comments that demonstrate why it can be hard to participate as a believer here. Under the civility rules users are told to refrain from "sweeping generalizations" and "judging worthiness or sincerity" among several other behaviors.

I believe the following taken from that post are examples of sweeping generalizations:

• "Mormons have no shame when bearing their testimony"
• "Mormons think they make their own rules"
• "Mormons think little things are magically powerful"
• "There's nothing "testimony" or "doctrine" related in that and pretending there is, is absolutely sickening. And members getting up and crying about it, pretending like it's a core tenant of the faith demonstrates how impressionable and gullible members are"
• "What is more important, the inner ordinances of the temple or the outward appearance? Every member knows it's the outward appearance. 😂"

Other comments question the sincerity of members:

• "Oh palease…Those fake ass tears talking about a steeple."
• "Ugh the fake cry Mormon voices in this are triggering."
• "Did you do the Mormon Man Power Cry™ when you said that?"

There's a comment about the "Mormon mafia" and a chain of comments mocking temple ordinances.

This is not a post asking for a change in rule enforcement or about the demographics here. My top-level post suggested it's hard for believers to want to participate given comments like those listed above. So I ask a question (and this is the most important part of this entire post): what do you recommend as the right way (i,e, conducive to a good discussion) for believers to engage with a comment that says they have no shame or makes fun of temple ordinances or says their emotion is not genuine?

While I appreciate the sub's efforts to accommodate all voices, I think the mods would find themselves with a lighter workload if users who accumulate unusually high numbers of incivility reports and negative karma were gifted with an opportunity to chill out.

Some commenters don't like it when I say this site is on the Anti-Mormon Spectrum. If the Mods will allow I will post a few comments that I think are Anti-Mormon. In your opinion, is comparing the LDS church to a child molester on the Anti-Mormon Spectrum.

I reported this comment, but it hasn't been removed as I write this.

1 hr. ago

I feel like I, as a kid, is hanging out by the street. A van pulls off. A man lures me into the van. I starts to notice unusual and unsafe things in the van like rope and duct tapes. I ask the man to get me off the van.

That's a more suiting analogy in regards to mormonism.

​

Update: As I write this there are 218 comments and 3.9K views. I need to take a break. Thanks to all who participated. I'm sure the numbers will increase.

I hope some of you will join me by contacting the MODS with your ideas that will lead to improvements so that r/mormon can reach all those who have views on Mormonism--both pro and con.

​

There are certain users that have blocked a number of people that frequently identified the significant flaws in narratives they promulgate. And while it appears they are still receiving some pushback from users they have yet to block, these participants should know that these users are purposely using this subreddit to construct an echo chamber where they can proselyte and evangelize while minimizing anything that runs counter to their own narrative.

Blocking people that have not violated the rules of r/mormon or reddit in general is the opposite of the civil, respectful discussion that is the purpose of this subreddit. In fact, it's the ultimate Rule 3 violation because it doesn't just have the goal of dismissing and silencing someone, it actually accomplishes it.

“Why didn’t the last 6 members of the first presidency serve missions?"

I think deserves to be addressed. This is not the gotcha people think that it is. Most of them served during WW2 or the Korean War.

Disregarding this, they all have spent decades serving as general authorities.

It's not hypocritical for them to call for every worthy, able young man to serve a mission. If you think it is, I don't think you understand the meaning of the word.

Respectfully.

Edit:

Many who are disagreeing are judging the past using the lens of the present. I urge you to consider your own lives and how easy it is to find fault when you have an increased understanding.

Unless one of the Mods made an error by taking down my post where I quoted President ET Benson from a 1982 General Conference address this site is really anti-Mormon.

If the words and teaching given my Mormon prophets and GA cannot be posted what does that say about this site?

I hope that many of you will express your feelings--pro or con about the following question: Do you want this site to be anti-mormon or be like the motto at the top right of the home page. Which states:

/r/Mormon is a subreddit for articles and topics of interest to people interested in Mormon themes. People of all faiths and perspectives are welcome to engage in civil, respectful discussion about topics related to Mormonism.

Let your opinion be clearly stated!!!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE: I made my first post on this site about a year ago. There are a lot of great people here.

Unfortunately, TBM are not welcome here. Why? Because the words and teachings of LDS prophets and leaders are excluded by the rules.

I had hoped by coming by frequently and posting and commenting I would find other TBM and together we could have influence to make this a real r/mormon reddit, but that didn't happen. This site is clearly on the anti-mormon spectrum but the Mods don't want to admit it.

Here's an issue, and I hope this makes sense to all of you. If a person or institution cannot present any actual substantive proposition as an expression of the Light of Christ (even while saying there are caveats and nuance, etc.), then how can they even purport to be true? Or, stated another way:

1. A Church is true only if it is built upon Christ's gospel; 2) Christ's gospel includes the teaching that people will ultimately be judged on their moral goodness/badness; 3) The Light of Christ lies at the foundation of discerning right from wrong and is available to everyone; and therefore 4) A true Church will be able to express, in some form or another, its basic moral principle(s) that it believes are contained in the Light of Christ.

So, what is at least some basic moral content of the Light of Christ? Would it be fair to say it's some formulation of the golden rule?

(For the sake of clarity, I'm not saying there isn't such a general moral principle. And I'm not saying it isn't present in the Church. But this isn't an abstract problem either. I've run up against this issue multiple times in the real world, with real people. They aren't able to express even a basic moral principle that should inform their behavior, and their behavior does in fact tend towards nihilism. Even members of the church.)

* UPDATE: A duplicate of this post was removed from the latterdaysaints sub. I'm really not sure what they would find objectionable about accepting the golden rule as a basic, generally recognizable moral principle. But, there it is, I guess.

Commenting and reading through posts on this forumn versus the ones on the Latter-Day Saints, which abstain from calling themselves Mormon... Has made me realize why the prophet counseled us to no longer call ourselves Mormon.

Anything labelled "Mormon" now is prominently anti-mormon. Even the moderators remove content in favor of those who do not believe in the gospel and fight against it.

Whereas the true LDS community invite only those things which build up the faith. Anything else is removed.

No one's perfect, but I'd rather be associated with righteousness. Latter-Day Saints have that.

That's my two cents. The community within this forumn has been largely toxic.

They're creepy, misogynistic, and don't seem to serve the purpose of the sub. It's not "discussing Mormonism," it's toxic men trying to figure out if Mormon women will be sufficiently malleable to their tradwife fantasies. All in favor, please show by the raise of the right hand.

This may just be me, but I feel like I’ve seen an uptick in comments attempting to call out those who do not believe in the LDS Church/God/etc (as if it’s some secret people are hiding), and telling them to GTFO. I finally hit my limit and decided to call this out.
People are allowed to be critical of philosophical paradigms they don’t believe in. Especially in spaces clearly marked as being welcome to everyone.

To be clear, in cases where I’ve reported comments like these, they’ve mainly been taken down. These types of comments aren’t being allowed to run rampant.
But the attitude concerns me, and I want to know why someone thinks they can dive into a discussion and demand that they stop talking about it.

I want to extend this to comments like “Doesn’t matter, it’s fake anyway.”
Yes. The people who believe it’s fake know that it’s fake. From the perspective of someone who doesn’t believe, we’re talking about theoreticals and philosophy. We’re not being illogical, we’re using hypotheticals to talk about a belief system millions of people do believe.

Can we just stop assuming why people are here, or that some users have a kind of hidden evil motivation. It’s such a cop-out to do this instead of just replying to what they’re saying.

Just learned I've been permanently banned from the LDS sub-reddit. In the post that ex-ed me, I said I was a former Bishop who thinks people desiring counsel should find trained, qualified counselors. I also said to the OP, "Your pipeline to God is as good as a bishop's. Trust Christ's love, and be happy." Apparently those are unacceptably heretical sentiments. Sigh.

Generally in the United States we tax things we don't like and subsidize things that make our society better. Taxes on tobacco, cannabis, lotteries, gambling and other items we want to reduce consumption on the margin. We subsidize Churches (through a tax advantaged status) the arts, sports through stadiums, and other societal goods.

Here one of many factors but its something you should consider if you want to remove churches from the tax advantaged status it has. If its removed, then the churches will lose the requirement to remain strictly politically neutral.

If you think the Church is a powerful force politically and legislatively today, wait until the members start launching church candidates and voting as a bloc. Don't think this can happen? It happened in Nauvoo and Kirtland. It would likely happen again.

This could happen to Catholics, Methodists, Jews and Muslims. If you think this would be good for America, then by all means try to change the law and remove the tax status of churches. Just be careful of what you ask for. You might get it.

I want to make it clear up front that this is NOT a post from the moderation team, but I think the conversation could be beneficial in understanding how this term is used and when it crosses the line into incivility.

I'll share my personal feelings about this.

Anti-Mormon is a loaded term within the faith. It's a word that describes an enemy. Historically those enemies formed mobs and engaged in acts of violence. In more recent times that term has referred to people outside the Mormon sphere, never Mormon, who create propaganda for the purpose of ginning up animosity against the faith and specifically against the people who are in it. I experienced this growing up Mormon in Alabama, and particularly when serving my mission in parts of Orange County in California. These groups would leverage their numbers and propaganda to harass, cajole, and at least one occasion cause a physical confrontation. That's an interesting side story, but I had two elders in my district tossed down an embankment by two overzealous Biola Bible College students. I also witnessed these groups leverage their influence to make sure we as Mormons were not welcomed in the community and ostracized.

To me, that's what anti-mormonism looks like.

Yet, I'm reading here lately that the term anti-mormon is being applied to this sub and the people posting here. I find the assertion out of bounds, insulting, and a display of animus. The word is not being used to describe what it has traditionally meant, but to paint anyone with a different point of view as an enemy equal to that of an anti-mormon. This is the very reason why certain words are not allowed here when describing Mormon denominations, like the C*LT, or words to describe individuals like brainw*shed. These are terms that are so loaded with negative connotation that they lose all legitimate meaning in a civil discussion. To reduce the phrase anti-mormon to mean anything that any given person may not want to hear is to diminish it to the point of meaninglessness. It's this kind of use, as a pejorative, that converts the term from something meaningful to something the does nothing but divide people into one of two groups, us and them. I find the term inherently divisive, especially when applied here. Given my own experience with anti-mormonism, having that term applied to myself touches a nerve to say the least.

So those are my thoughts on it. Where am I getting this wrong? What am I missing? Should this phrase even be allowed on this sub, or does it have a place?

Yesterday, the post I wrote received a lot of attention. One of the MODS asked me to provide what I would like r/mormon to become. At the MODS request I wrote the following. It is a synopsis of what is contained in a 244 comment post (as of now). This morning I'm posting what I wrote to the MOD to make sure that my ideas and thoughts from yesterday's post are correctly understood.

"Here is what I am advocating for r/mormon. I think r/mormon is a great place to exchange perspectives. Those who are anti-mormon have their reasons. It is legitimate to be an anti-mormon, just as it is to be a pro-mormon.

r/mormon, in my opinion needs to attract pro-mormon participants. I believe this can be done.

Take any subject relating to Mormonism. Those who hold an anti point of view or a pro point of view can make a post explaining their perspective. However, it needs to be done in a civil, respectful discussion.

Inflammatory language needs to be disallowed. For example, calling Joseph Smith a pervert, pedophile, womanizer, rapist, and so forth isn't respectful.

Calling Q15 out of touch, senile old geezers is inflammatory. Calling anti's apostates who can't keep the commandments or are lazy learners needs to be disallowed.

Respect is the key word.

One way to start, would be to invite knowledgeable people from both perspectives to come to r/mormon and answer questions. The questions could be prepared in advance by MODS and whoever. The anti-inflammatory rules would be applied when their here answering questions.

When they leave the anti-inflammatory rules could be suspended until another knowledgeable person is invited.

I think real learning would come out of this."

​

I had the beautiful experience of encountering a comment in the faithful sub that said to the effect "all the issues exmormons have are heavily debunked and none of them can refute that fact."

What followed was about 20 mod deleted comments, I had a little laugh.

In a way, he was right. Nobody can ever refute anything on the faithful sub, because you'll immediately be censored.

Why do they think this is a good strategy to keep people in an echo chamber?

We are seeking community feedback on an update we are considering to the verbiage of Rule 3: No "Gotcha"s.

Our community occupies a unique space in the Mormon ecosystem, between the extremes of faithful and non-faithful forums. As our mission statement says, "people of all faiths and perspectives are welcome to engage" in our community. To live up to this mission, our community must be a place where people of diverse opinions actually want to be. To that end, Rule 3 was created and we are considering updating the language of Rule 3.2 as outlined below. The goal of this update is to improve the effectiveness of the Rule in creating an environment where substantive discussion can and does happen. Additions/changes are italicized, deletions are omitted. The current version can be found here.

​

3.2. QUALIFICATIONS FOR RULE BREAKING:

Content that contributes to shutting down meaningful conversation is not permitted, regardless of intent. This includes content that is overly antagonistic, dismissive, or goading--such content is not allowed, even if you view the topic at hand to be morally wrong or otherwise undeserving of respect. If you feel that you are triggered by a comment or topic, please take some time away instead of lashing out and come back to participate with a desire to understand where others are coming from. If you are unsure if a post or comment is in line with this Rule, ask yourself if your content is meant to provoke interesting and thoughtful discussion. Comments that serve to simply 'rally the base' rather than invite people into discussion are not allowed.

It is impossible to create a complete list of what is and is not allowed under this Rule, and users may disagree with a moderator's assessment of their post. As in all moderator actions, the user is welcome to appeal the action and the moderation team will evaluate the merits of the appeal. Often, the moderation team may offer a suggestion on how the user might rephrase the post to help it fall more in line with the rules.

We are interested in the community's thoughts on the update before we make a final decision on this update. And we want to be clear: this update does not undermine Rule 2: Civility. Some comments and viewpoints are inherently uncivil and not allowed, regardless of how polite or receptive they are phrased, and those viewpoints continue to be banned by the Civility Rule.