98 replies to this topic

[The Nehor]

Pahoran, on 26 March 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

So I guess the other posters will have to decide for themselves what category is the best fit for me.

Hmmm.....I'm gonna go with sheep in wolves clothing wearing a sheep costume.

[calmoriah]

The Nehor, on 26 March 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

I dare someone to attempt to label me.

I gave up long ago.

[The Nehor]

calmoriah, on 26 March 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

I gave up long ago.

You get the cookie.

[calmoriah]

Not sure I want a demon made cookie.  Will it cause my head to spin around?

[volgadon]

Dunno about demons, but as the Devil is a gentleman, I'm sure he keeps a well-stocked pantry of only the finest.

[The Nehor]

calmoriah, on 26 March 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

Not sure I want a demon made cookie.  Will it cause my head to spin around?

No, it will just detach.

[KevinG]

My avitar says I'm a *woof*!

[ebeddoulos]

I have observed, sir, that you have failed to respond to my CFRs.  I am sure that is an oversight on your part.  In order to be of assistance I have assembled the relevant posts below.
.

ERayR, on 26 March 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

Pardon me but word meanings are not for private interpretation.  They are defined in the lexicons of the society.  When private interpretations are substituted for the common and general definition communication can and will break down.  Private definitions are used to control the discourse and are never helpful.

My response is rather long with a couple of CFRs so for your convenience I have reproduced it here:

"Huh? Who are you trying to kid? All words start out as private definitions. As they are used by more and more people in more and more venues, private definitions become the "common and general definition." Over time, private definitions continue to modify "the lexicons of society." That is why language in general and the English Language in specificity is so dynamic and fluid.

CFR: Specifically provide your source for the "common and general definition" for antiMormon. I think that you will find that antiMormon/anti-Mormon is not to be had in the following Lexicons of Society:
Oxford Dictionary: http://oxforddiction...k&q=anti-mormon
Merriam-WebsterDictionary: http://www.wordcentr...&va=anti-mormon
Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.re...nti-mormon?s=ts

In addition, what part of my definitions, in detail if you please, do you find not "helpful?

I find your argument to be fallacious, sir, at best."

For verification, my response can be found at post #52: http://www.mormondia...__p__1209104829

ERayR, on 26 March 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

Only if private interpretations come into play.  When the common lexicon is used it usually isn't a problem.  Example:  The simple dictionary definition of an anti-mormon is one who is against Mormonism …

My response is a real short CFR that consists of:

“Which dictionary?”

That CFR can be verified at #56: http://www.mormondia...__p__1209104855

I await your response, sir.

[thesometimesaint]

I can't tell you what Antimormonism is, but I know it when I see it.

[Pa Pa]

selek1, on 21 March 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

[/font][/size][/color]

If you read through the thread in question carefully, you'll see that the moderators had declared such terms verbotten- but only one side of the equation could refrain from using them.

Now you tell me! I'll close mine. Can we still do that?

[ERayR]

ebeddoulos, on 27 March 2012 - 08:26 AM, said:

I have observed, sir, that you have failed to respond to my CFRs.  I am sure that is an oversight on your part.  In order to be of assistance I have assembled the relevant posts below.
.


My response is rather long with a couple of CFRs so for your convenience I have reproduced it here:

"Huh? Who are you trying to kid? All words start out as private definitions. As they are used by more and more people in more and more venues, private definitions become the "common and general definition." Over time, private definitions continue to modify "the lexicons of society." That is why language in general and the English Language in specificity is so dynamic and fluid.

CFR: Specifically provide your source for the "common and general definition" for antiMormon. I think that you will find that antiMormon/anti-Mormon is not to be had in the following Lexicons of Society:
Oxford Dictionary: http://oxforddiction...k&q=anti-mormon
Merriam-WebsterDictionary: http://www.wordcentr...&va=anti-mormon
Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.re...nti-mormon?s=ts

In addition, what part of my definitions, in detail if you please, do you find not "helpful?

I find your argument to be fallacious, sir, at best."

For verification, my response can be found at post #52: http://www.mormondia...__p__1209104829



My response is a real short CFR that consists of:

“Which dictionary?”

That CFR can be verified at #56: http://www.mormondia...__p__1209104855

I await your response, sir.

Sorry that you have a problem with patience but This time of year I am very involved with my work.  As I have a moment right now I will try to clear things up.  As you have stated antimormon is not found because it is made by adding the prefix anti- to Mormon. The prefix anti has a simple definition:

an·ti
   [an-tahy, an-tee] Show IPA

noun, plural -tis.
a person who is opposed to a particular practice, party, policy, action, etc.

This makes the compound word anti-mormon which simply becomes one who is opposed to a particular practice, policy, action, etc.  It says nothing about that opposition needing to be extreme in order to be anti.  Simply opposed is sufficient to be an anti-mormon.

The part of your definition I find to not be helpful is:  "...who is extremely intolerant...".   As stated above to simply be opposed is to be anti.  It does not require extreme intolerance but simple opposition and intolerance is sufficient.

Hope this helps because I have to get back to work.

[frankenstein]

KevinG, on 26 March 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

Can you point to some examples?

I could but will not; this board is replete with the use of labels.  I really do not care for a back and forth of you arguing "the person deserved it" and me arguing that "deserved it" is not something Christ taught. You and I just disagree, so I wish not to spend anymore time on the matter - not out of animosity towards you, but rather that we fundamentally disagree.  
You and I disagree on the use of labels. You think labels are either "deserved" or useful. I find labels to be neither.  As I have seen on the board, the use of many labels do not add to the post, but are rather intended incite the reader against the intended target. You seem to beleive that labels can add to depth and quality of a discussion.

If someone asks about Joseph Smith carrying a gun in Carthage it matters not whether the person raising the subject is for or against the LDS Church.  If someone puts forth the proposition horses in the BoM were Tapirs, it matters whether that person is a self proclaimed apologist.  Neither label adds to the discussion. Nor does either label prove or disprove the information provided.

selek1, on 26 March 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

Kevin, your argument is predicated on the flawed assumption that Francis is arguing in good faith.
Review his posts.
Every single instance in which he has demanded that the Saints can and must be held to a higher standard has been an attempt to intimidate them into silence.
His criticism on this regard is notoriously one-sided and in every single instance can be boiled down to a single, consistent, inescapable theme.
His theme?
"You Mormons Need To Shut up."

It is very telling that you consider a reminder to living a higher standard as intimidation and censorship. Did not realize that following the Gospel was so intimidating.

CFR that "Every single instance in which he has demanded that the Saints can and must be held to a higher standard has been an attempt to intimidate them into silence."

CFR that "His criticism on this regard is notoriously one-sided and in every single instance can be boiled down to a single, consistent, inescapable theme."

CFR, ""His theme? "You Mormons Need To Shut up."

There are few times when I have informed persons that their lack of knowledge about a particular subject is obvious, and that the person should read up on the subject and return (see a recently closed thread wherein several poster made obviously uninformed claims about the US Tax Code, I provide the correct information and asked the persons to proceed according to the correct information), other than that, I have never attempted to silence anyone.

Pahoran, on 26 March 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

And some people think you're grimly humourless.

That's one of the funniest posts I've read in a while.

But seriously, I really don't know what to make of Frankenstein.  Whenever I see a post of his, I really don't know what to expect (unless it's an SSM thread, of course.)  And that, of course, is the point that he misses: "labels" in the context of this forum are really just indicators of the expected trajectory of a poster's comments.  An anti-Mormon is usually going to be arguing that Mormonism is wrong, horrible, destructive and (add more negative adjectives here.)  If they're an EV anti-Mormon, they'll be appealing to standard Bible prooftexts, and if they're a Tannerite, they'll be trotting out the standard JoD prooftexts.  An apostate can usually be expected to tell us how the Church should change to suit them, but may eventually admit that they wouldn't come back even if the Church did make the changes they demand.  A "TBM" believes in the truth claims of the Church.  An "apologist" has actual arguments to counter anti-Mormon arguments, and the anti-Mormons reflexively accuse the "apologists" of lying.

But Frankie blows hot and cold.  Maybe we need a new category for posters like him; perhaps "Laodicean" will do.

Regards,
Pahoran

I chuckled at "Laodicean", given the "hot and cold" I presume you are referencing Revelation.

Paharon is very close to correct in one regard, I am consistent in threads concerning ssm and homosexual issues. However, I have never advocated for living a homosexual lifestyle. I have never advocated in favor of ssm. My involvement in those discussion is consistent in that I either provide the inconvenient truths that those opposed to ssm willfully leave out, or I counter arguments provided against ssm.  I believe that when it all comes down to the nitty-gritty the LDS will simply have to accept that ssm is wrong because God said. I accept "God said". Just as I accept "God said" about many aspects of the LDS Church teachings/Doctrine.

The LDS will eventually also have to accept that "God said", and they will have to accept that "God said" is not a legally valid reason for a man-made Court of Law - at least not a Court of Law in the United States.

[KevinG]

Not all labels are destructive or arbitrary.  For example I would prefer my Windex to be labelled window cleaner and my blue beverages to be labelled Koolaid.

If someone is openly opposed to the Latter-day Saints freedom of religion I think Anti-Mormon may apply.  I am not likely to use anti-mormon for someone who rightly points out that the pepper box pistol in the first room in the Church History Museum was discharged by Joseph Smith in the Carthage jail.

[selek1]

frankenstein, on 27 March 2012 - 01:36 PM, said:

It is very telling that you consider a reminder to living a higher standard as intimidation and censorship.

It is very telling that this level of logical error is the summit of your ability.
I never suggested any such thing.  I pointed out that your selective abuse of such reminders is an attempt to intimidate.

I do not blame the cart for the *** that's pulling it.

Quote

Did not realize that following the Gospel was so intimidating.

Nor did I suggest this bit of foolscap.  The Gospel is easy to follow and lightens many burdens- but your selective and abusive board-nannying is not the Gospel.

Quote

CFR that "Every single instance in which he has demanded that the Saints can and must be held to a higher standard has been an attempt to intimidate them into silence."

CFR that "His criticism on this regard is notoriously one-sided and in every single instance can be boiled down to a single, consistent, inescapable theme."

CFR, ""His theme? "You Mormons Need To Shut up."

  While I realize that the chip on your shoulder prevents you from getting close enough to the screen to read what I actually wrote- but if you look back at the very post you quoted, the specific references are contained therein.

Quote

There are few times when I have informed persons that their lack of knowledge about a particular subject is obvious, and that the person should read up on the subject and return (see a recently closed thread wherein several poster made obviously uninformed claims about the US Tax Code, I provide the correct information and asked the persons to proceed according to the correct information), other than that, I have never attempted to silence anyone.

Others are free to review your actual posts and come to their own conclusions based upon the evidence.

[followerofemmanuel]

KevinG, on 27 March 2012 - 10:41 PM, said:

Not all labels are destructive or arbitrary.  For example I would prefer my Windex to be labelled window cleaner and my blue beverages to be labelled Koolaid.

If someone is openly opposed to the Latter-day Saints freedom of religion I think Anti-Mormon may apply.  I am not likely to use anti-mormon for someone who rightly points out that the pepper box pistol in the first room in the Church History Museum was discharged by Joseph Smith in the Carthage jail.

I do agree with you that labels can be helpful.  Labels only become negative when they are misused or over used.  To use your analogy.... putting a warning on anything "blue" just  in case there is a possibility, that someone, could have switch the contents to window cleaner rather than putting confidence in the Kool-Aid, being just that... Kool-Aid.

I think most people understand the difference, but others may prefer being extra cautious..."it's blue...potentially poisonous".  That's when things become un-healthy.  I'm speculating here, but I can only assume that people who over use or misuse labels, do so because they have had negative experiences before.  The unfortunate result is that when negative labels are over used people get offended, walls go up or people stop taking the time to really understand other people's ideas or beliefs.  It also indicates that others have not been forth right in their intentions and may have misrepresentated themselves or broke trust in the relationship.

Edited by followerofemmanuel, 28 March 2012 - 10:51 AM.

[frankenstein]

selek1, on 27 March 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

It is very telling that this level of logical error is the summit of your ability.
I never suggested any such thing.  I pointed out that your selective abuse of such reminders is an attempt to intimidate.

I do not blame the cart for the *** that's pulling it.

Nor did I suggest this bit of foolscap.  The Gospel is easy to follow and lightens many burdens- but your selective and abusive board-nannying is not the Gospel.

  While I realize that the chip on your shoulder prevents you from getting close enough to the screen to read what I actually wrote- but if you look back at the very post you quoted, the specific references are contained therein.

Others are free to review your actual posts and come to their own conclusions based upon the evidence.

You can prove your statements or prove yourself a teller of false hood.  
Prove the allegations or retract your gals unsupported claims.

Oh well, now we all know to add you to list of people who will not support their babblings

Frankenstein and Selek have left the building.

Edited by Minos, 28 March 2012 - 02:35 PM.

[KevinG]

frankenstein, on 28 March 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

Oh well, now we all know to add you to list of people who will not support their babblings

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
An' ev'n devotion!

[ebeddoulos]

ERayR, on 27 March 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:

Sorry that you have a problem with patience but This time of year I am very involved with my work.  As I have a moment right now I will try to clear things up.  As you have stated antimormon is not found because it is made by adding the prefix anti- to Mormon. The prefix anti has a simple definition:

an·ti
   [an-tahy, an-tee] Show IPA

noun, plural -tis.
a person who is opposed to a particular practice, party, policy, action, etc.

This makes the compound word anti-mormon which simply becomes one who is opposed to a particular practice, policy, action, etc.  It says nothing about that opposition needing to be extreme in order to be anti.  Simply opposed is sufficient to be an anti-mormon.

The part of your definition I find to not be helpful is:  "...who is extremely intolerant...".   As stated above to simply be opposed is to be anti.  It does not require extreme intolerance but simple opposition and intolerance is sufficient.

Hope this helps because I have to get back to work.

I am pleased that you have admitted that the "common lexicons" "of society" have failed to provide a "simple dictionary definition" of antiMormon and that you are forced to use a compound word made by selectively using certain generic definitions while discarding others.  Did you really think no one would notice you have thus generated own "private interpretation"?

The problem with the "private interpretation" that you are proposing is that the definition is too vague and generic and will get overused and becomes trite and useless.  AntiMormon, as I have defined it:

Quote

an·ti•Mor·mon
1. An individual, group or organization who is extremely intolerant of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, its beliefs, doctrines, teachings, practices, and leadership, 2. Any covert intolerance or overt contentious, combative, or violent action against the restored Church of Jesus Christ, its members, leadership or property, 3. An individual, group or organization who participates in, financially subsidizes or whose income is derived in full or in part from publishing tracts, books, films, web-sites; or organizes demonstrations to disturb meetings or dedications of new buildings; or produces lectures, conventions, seminars, television or radio programs; or related activities which promote intolerance against the restored Church of Jesus Christ or its leadership and members, 4. An individual, group or organization which deliberately deceives by use of lies, concealments, equivocations, exaggeration or understatement in an effort to damage or bring harm to the Church of Jesus Christ, its leadership or members.  Note: The term should not be confused with or used as a synonym of Critic.  See Critic

makes labeling someone an antiMormon quite difficult in that it requires someone to actively participate in egregious and "extremely intolerant" acts.  Case in point: an individual makes a statement to the effect that he thinks that the Word of Wisdom is incorrect because it denies him a scientifically proven healthy glass of wine and therefore he cannot and will not tolerate this doctrine. At worst, this individual is a critic; not an antiMormon as your "private interpretation" would have it.  On the other hand, an individual  is probably an antiMormon and not a critic when he parks his car accross the street from a temple openhouse with a sign strapped to it which states that "Mormonism Is Worse Than Child Molesting Homosexuals".  I do not wish to see a tolerant individual who disagrees with the restored Church of Jesus Christ but who promotes honest, fair, reasonable dialogue labeled as an antiMormon as if he as were as intolerant as the street preacher who drags temple garments in the gutter.  It would not be true nor fair.  On the other hand, I do not wish to see an intolerant, bigoted, fanatic antiMormon parading around, draped in the respectable cloak of "Critic" simply because some someone has decided that "antiMormon" is not socially acceptable or politically correct or that it interferes with their agenda or public persona.

Edited by ebeddoulos, 28 March 2012 - 09:32 PM.

[ERayR]

ebeddoulos, on 28 March 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

I am pleased that you have admitted that the "common lexicons" "of society" have failed to provide a "simple dictionary definition" of antiMormon and that you are forced to use a compound word made by selectively using certain generic definitions while discarding others.  Did you really think no one would notice you have thus generated own "private interpretation"?

The problem with the "private interpretation" that you are proposing is that the definition is too vague and generic and will get overused and becomes trite and useless.  AntiMormon, as I have defined it:

makes labeling someone an antiMormon quite difficult in that it requires someone to actively participate in egregious and "extremely intolerant" acts.  Case in point: an individual makes a statement to the effect that he thinks that the Word of Wisdom is incorrect because it denies him a scientifically proven healthy glass of wine and therefore he cannot and will not tolerate this doctrine. At worst, this individual is a critic; not an antiMormon as your "private interpretation" would have it.  On the other hand, an individual  is probably an antiMormon and not a critic when he parks his car accross the street from a temple openhouse with a sign strapped to it which states that "Mormonism Is Worse Than Child Molesting Homosexuals".  I do not wish to see a tolerant individual who disagrees with the restored Church of Jesus Christ but who promotes honest, fair, reasonable dialogue labeled as an antiMormon as if he as were as intolerant as the street preacher who drags temple garments in the gutter.  It would not be true nor fair.  On the other hand, I do not wish to see an intolerant, bigoted, fanatic antiMormon parading around, draped in the respectable cloak of "Critic" simply because some someone has decided that "antiMormon" is not socially acceptable or politically correct or that it interferes with their agenda or public persona.

Ok we can use your definition as long as I get to define "extremely intolerant" .

You see I see nothing wrong with being an anti-mormon.  It is accurate and descriptive.  If one goes beyond that then add the descriptors i.e. bigoted, rabid etc.

Edited by ERayR, 29 March 2012 - 09:19 AM.