I love Mormons but I strongly disagree with them. Some would call me (and have called me) “anti-Mormon” because of that. Others have enough sense to see that the disagreement is not personal, but doctrinal.

The Book of Mormon taught nothing different from what early 19th-century religious seekers would have already been familiar with.

Hmmm…interesting idea, Aaron. I could have sworn the Book of Mormon taught something about Nephites, Lamanites, and Jaredites as ancient Americans, something about Christ appearing to them after his resurrection, something about war being acceptable for certain reasons, something about Christ needing baptism because everyone needs baptism, something about Christ’s Church needing to have Christ’s name in it, and something about a Prophet named Joseph who would restore the gospel and bring the Book of Mormon to light when the Lord started gathering his people again. Those are just a few of the significant historical and doctrinal teachings introduced in the Book of Mormon. Who is Kurt Widmer anyway? (I looked for a bio or something and couldn’t find one.) Perhaps he is guilty of some of that “doctrinal misrepresentation” we are talking about.

You do make a good point, however, with your second quote. No one should assume that all LDS doctrines are found in the Book of Mormon. If Joey (or anyone else) wants to avoid doctrinal misrepresentation of Mormonism, he should focus on (and quote from) all of the sources I provided in my Mormon Literature comment; he should avoid quoting from other sources or using them to represent Mormon doctrine.

Finally, the Book of Mormon will always be the strongest starting point for understanding Mormon doctrine. It is the foundation of LDS theology, and it is “the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion” (Joseph Smith). Personally, I agree with your first quote (only) when it says that a belief in the divine origin of the book is necessary. It’s impossible to believe that Church doctrine is true without first believing that Joseph Smith was a Prophet. The Book of Mormon proves that he was.

Keep studying your Book of Mormon…and you can avoid the “doctrinal misrepresentation.”

That deserves two quotes:

“If belief in the Book of Mormon was a prerequisite to joining the Church, it was a belief in the book’s divine origin rather than the doctrinal content of the book. The Book of Mormon taught nothing different from what early 19th-century religious seekers would have already been familiar with. The theology of the Book of Mormon was monotheistic. Early Mormon theology then would not have been unique in comparison to other beliefs of the day.”
— Kurt Widmer, Mormonism and the Nature of God: A Theological Evolution, 1830-1915

“Many people assume that if they read the Book of Mormon they will get a good idea of LDS beliefs. However, the Book of Mormon teaches one God, not plural gods as in Mormonism. It mentions heaven and hell, not three degrees of glory, no temple marriage or secret temple ceremonies. It does not teach baptism for the dead, pre-existence of man, eternal progression or polygamy…”
— Jerald and Sandra Tanner

Additionally, something about the definition of Anti-Mormon that you found doesn’t feel right to us. Personally, we would reserve that title for people who attempt to destroy Church members’ faith by publicly attacking the Church and focusing on its faults (can anyone name one earthly organization without faults?) while giving little or no weight to its well-established strengths. Anti-Mormons also tend to provide unsupported, incorrect, or twisted information about the Church’s doctrines and teachings.

We found a definition on the wiki that seems decent:

Anti-Mormonism, as Anti-Semitism, is criticism of Mormonism based upon prejudice and doctrinal misrepresentation.

So, you aren’t Anti-Mormon…yet . Keep studying your Book of Mormon…and you can avoid the “doctrinal misrepresentation.”

From my conversations with Joey, no Joey is not an anti-mormon.