"OUT OF MY MISERY"]What makes someone a TBM Mormon???
What makes someone a regular Mormon???
What makes someone a NON-MORMON???
What makes someone an EX-MORMON???
What makes someone an ANTI-MORMON???
I am lost as to the differences as many others are.
Are there any differences really, are we all Mormons???
I would say for those born in the faith or who come from polygamy stock the answer is "yes." Mormons are lke a new race of people and thanks to most of the early LDS sharing the same father, you can spot a Mormon in the middle of New York City.
Even though I do not believe the way most LDS do and am currently inactive, I would still consider myself Mormon because the culture/values I was raised with are ingrained in me.
Ex-MormonFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ex-Mormon refers to a former or inactive member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or any one of the Latter Day Saint denominations, colloquially and collectively called "Mormonism." Ex-Mormon may also refer to various aggregations of ex-Mormons who comprise a social movement. Ex-Mormons should not be confused with Jack Mormons ("dry-Mormons"), who often have no philosophical disagreement with the LDS church but do not participate, or Cultural Mormons who consider non-belief irrelevant to their adoption of the Mormon lifestyle and identity. The distinction is important to ex-Mormons, many of whom see themselves as conscientious objectors to the religion's teachings or practices, and who see their decision to leave as morally compelling and socially risky. The latter applies as some ex-Mormons later find themselves shunned by Mormon friends and family after their exit.[1] Ex-mormons leave Mormonism at a cost,[2] often missing out on major family events such as temple weddings which are limited to active members of the LDS church meeting certain requirements of the religion.
Ex-Mormon is sometimes abbreviated as "exmo."
I didn't realize my inactivity qualified me and the majority of LDS members as "ex-mo". Interesting.
More from Wikipedia
The term Mormon [6] was first used in modern times in the 1830s as a pejorative to describe those who believed that Joseph Smith, Jr. had been called as a prophet of God, and who accepted the Book of Mormon as scripture.
The term Mormon continues to be used to refer to members of this group that followed Brigham Young, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but not to related smaller denominations that separated from this group over issues such as polygamy. Individual leaders within the hierarchy of the LDS Church have sometimes made explicit effort to reject the use of the term "Mormon," as it does not include a reference to Jesus, whom the Church asserts to be its central figure.[7] As a general policy, however, while the Church prefers the use of its full name, use of the term LDS or Mormon is not considered offensive or incorrect.[8]Anti Mormon from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-MormonOfficial views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
"[A]postates after turning from the faith of Christ ... have sooner or later fallen into the snares of the wicked one, and have been left destitute of the Spirit of God, to manifest their wickedness in the eyes of multitudes. From apostates the faithful have received the severest persecutions ... 'When once that light which was in them is taken from them, they become as much darkened as they were previously enlightened, and then, no marvel, if all their power should be enlisted against the truth,' and they, Judas like, seek the destruction of those who were their greatest benefactors."[67]
In 1985, Vaughn J. Featherstone, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy of the LDS Church addressed students at the Church-owned Brigham Young University, calling anti-Mormon material "theological pornography that is damaging to the spirit," stating that "none of it is worth casting an eye upon. Do not read the anti-Mormon materials. That is not the way you resolve questions about the truthfulness of the restored gospel."[68] Also, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who "support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church" may be subject to disciplinary action, such as being released from certain leadership positions, being refused entry into Mormon temples, disfellowshipment, and possibly excommunication.[69]
Rejection of the term
Many of those who have been labeled "anti-Mormon" object to the designation, arguing that the term implies that disagreement or criticism of Mormonism stems from some inherent "anti-Mormon" prejudice, rather than being part of a legitimate factual or religious debate. Eric Johnson, for example, makes a distinction between "personal animosity and intellectual dialogue". Johnson insists that he is motivated by "love and compassion for Mormons", and that while he "[might] plead guilty to being against Mormonism", he finds the suggestion that he is anti-Mormon "both offensive and inaccurate."[8] Stephen Cannon elaborates,
It is also helpful to know that Mormons are a group of people united around a belief system. Therefore, to be “anti-Mormon” is to be against people. Christians who desire to communicate the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Mormons are never to come against people of any stripe. Yes, evangelical Christians do have strong disagreements with Mormonism, but the argument is with a belief system and not a people. The LDS people are no better or no worse than any other group of people. Any dispute is to be a disagreement with the “ism,” not the “Mormon.”[9]
Some Latter-day Saints, however, are of the opinion that to condemn their beliefs is to condemn those who hold those beliefs.
James White, meanwhile, rejects the term because of a lack of reciprocal terminology. He wrote to one LDS apologist, "If you will identify yourself as an anti-Baptist, I'll let you call me an anti-Mormon."[10]
Even some members of the Church who write negatively about it, especially those who call into question its divine nature, have had their writings labeled anti-Mormon. Members critical of the church tend to get disfellowshipped or excommunicated, making active members less likely to approach their work (cf. the September Six, Grant Palmer, Thomas W. Murphy, etc). Ex-Mormons who write about the church are likewise frequently labeled anti-Mormon, even when their writings are not inflammatory in nature.[11] The debate on who is "anti-Mormon" frequently arises in Mormon discussions of authors and sources. One view suggests, "It’s just another label used to draw the line in the sand and separate us and them." Another view suggests, "Everyone is anti- when they’re not pro-."[12]
Stephen Cannon has argued that use of the label is a "campaign by Latter-day Saints to disavow the facts presented by simply labeling the source as 'anti-Mormon'". He expounds on this in Games Mormon People Play: The Strategies and Diversions of Latter-day Saint Apologists:
This writer has seen rank-and-file Mormons 'tune out' valid historical information that put their church leaders in a negative light simply because it came from an 'anti-Mormon.' I believe it is advantageous for Mormon scholars to put critics in as negative a light as possible so as to keep the maximum number of church members isolated from revealing facts. The first line of defense seems to be getting that 'anti-Mormon' label painted on critics as quickly as possible.[13]
Some critics of the term also claim that the LDS Church frames the context of persecution in order to cultivate a persecution complex,[14] or that Mormon authors promote the ideal of a promised heavenly reward for enduring persecution for one's beliefs.[15]
[i][i]Mormons respond to these accusations by questioning whether critics like Johnson and Cannon really have Mormons' best interests at heart. For Brigham Young University's 100 Hour Board, the "anti-Mormon" label serves the constructive purpose of warning Latter-day Saints away from individuals who espouse "hatred and bigotry". It is better, says the Board, for a confused Saint to "talk to someone... that (1) has your best interests at heart, and (2) actually understands what the Church teaches."[16]
*Where would a "confused saint" find such a person? Isn't MAD/FAIR/FARMS supposed to be the type of place for confused saints exposed to church history? I wonder if the church leaders realize how many confused saints are accused of being "anti Mormon" by apologists or TBM's the moment they seek understanding and help on tough issues.
There is no grey area among apologists and TBM's for faithful LDS that question Mormon teachings and history. You are
anti Mormon in their eyes.