98 replies to this topic

[thesometimesaint]

Forgive them for they know not what they do, isn't a commandment to move in with those that abuse you either physically or emotionally.

[KevinG]

frankenstein, on 26 March 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

Keep up with the justifications.

CFR - state who has attempted to justify giving another an unearned label here?  Provide the example of the label, why it was unearned and the connected justification.  I'm just not seeing the evidence for your argument.

[KevinG]

thesometimesaint, on 26 March 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

Forgive them for they know not what they do, isn't a commandment to move in with those that abuse you either physically or emotionally.

Darn Skippy it aint!   And I am married to a woman that has struggled to reconcile honor thy mother and father with being the victim of real abuse.

[KevinG]

For the critics who take offense at the labels anti-mormon, critic and apostate can you suggest improvements to the statements ebeddoulos provided below:

ebeddoulos, on 26 March 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

We apply labels to everything.  That is the very function of language.  Just try to imagine attempting to communicate without labels.  Try to tell someone about a rose without being able to label its color or distinctive aroma.  Try to tell your physician about your ills without a label for body parts or symptoms.  Try to describe the love of your life without labels.  Labels are the colors rich with hues and tints with which we paint our verbal pictures.

There are those who loudly protest the use labels such as antiMormon or apostate when it is applied to them.  My response to them is an old saw: "If the shoe fits, wear it."  There are some who feel sorry for those who are accurately called antiMormon or apostate.  I am not in that camp.  

Some time ago I started to build my own dictionary of religious "labels".  I wanted to be able to easily recall the meanings of terms which are used in religious discussions; such terms as Eisegesis, Exegesis, Ketuvim, Monolatry, etc ... and yes antiMormon and apostate ... so that if I had the need to use such a word, I could do so with accuracy.  What follows is my definitions of antiMormon, apostate and some closely associated "labels".

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

Crit·ic
A person who disagrees with the restored Church of Jesus Christ, its beliefs, doctrines, teachings, practices, and leadership yet promotes honest, fair, reasonable dialogue and true Christian tolerance.
Note: The term Mormon Critic should not be confused with or used as a synonym of anti-Mormon. See antiMormon

A·pos·tate
An individual who has deliberately placed himself in a state of apostasy.

A·pos·ta·sy
1. Abandonment and/or rejection of one's principles, religious faith, or cause.  2. The alteration, abandonment and/or rejection of Christ’s revealed doctrine combined with the loss of the priesthood of God by either an individual or group.

When is it fair to use these labels and when is it not fair?  Again please give specific examples so we can honorably respect or debate your opinions.

[Sky]

frankenstein, on 26 March 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

Does a persons lack of following the Golden rule allow you not to follow it?

That applies to both sides, right?

But I don't see where in this discussion I have not followed the golden rule.  I just happen to have a different opinion than you.
  

[KevinG]

Sky, on 26 March 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

I just happen to have a different opinion than you.
  

Heretic!  

[frankenstein]

KevinG, on 26 March 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

CFR - state who has attempted to justify giving another an unearned label here?  Provide the example of the label, why it was unearned and the connected justification.  I'm just not seeing the evidence for your argument.

Correctly state my position then we can discuss. however for the moment I have no obligation to reference the position you have contrived and claimed is my position

[KevinG]

frankenstein, on 26 March 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

Correctly state my position then we can discuss. however for the moment I have no obligation to reference the position you have contrived and claimed is my position

You will need to clearly state your position first.  You have thrown out some generic accusatory statements and not backed them with a clear position of your own.

Before condemning those who use the labels critic, anti-mormon and apostate please show us where they were improperly used.  Then we can agree, disagree and discuss.  Otherwise we will continue talking past each other.

[frankenstein]

KevinG, on 26 March 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

You will need to clearly state your position first.  You have thrown out some generic accusatory statements and not backed them with a clear position of your own.

Before condemning those who use the labels critic, anti-mormon and apostate please show us where they were improperly used.  Then we can agree, disagree and discuss.  Otherwise we will continue talking past each other.

I have clearly stated my position. You want me to move goal posts to suit your position.

[KevinG]

frankenstein, on 26 March 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

I have clearly stated my position. You want me to move goal posts to suit your position.

I have obviously misunderstood your position.  Please restate it and we can move on from there.  Since this is a long thread and I take responsibility for misunderstanding your position - you can quote yourself or make a clear statement of your thesis/objection and I will approach it at face value.

My position is that sometimes the labels critic, anti-mormon and apostate are accurately used and not as a demonizing tactic.  There are numerous examples of behavior by those who criticize the LDS church and its members that rise to earning these labels in my opinion.

Labels in general are not always used to demonize but to categorize.  While the labels themselves are important the context in which they are used is also key to understanding.  (For example is someone using apologist to describe me as a defender of my faith or are they using it as an implied insult having earlier categorized apologists as unthinking parrots?)

I have not seen anyone on this thread justify the use of a label in a demonizing or improper manner.

Did I miss something in your presentation that makes this position one of "moving the goalposts?"

Edited by KevinG, 26 March 2012 - 11:32 AM.

[ERayR]

KevinG, on 26 March 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

For the critics who take offense at the labels anti-mormon, critic and apostate can you suggest improvements to the statements ebeddoulos provided below:

When is it fair to use these labels and when is it not fair?  Again please give specific examples so we can honorably respect or debate your opinions.

Yes, remove the qualifiers added to the definition.  Stick with anti means against or opposed to.
World English Dictionary anti (ˈæntɪ) — adj 1. opposed to a party, policy, attitude, etc: he won't join because he is rather anti — n 2. an opponent of a party, policy, etc

When one begins to embellish definitions to suit their own needs they destroy the effectiveness of the language.

With ebeddoulos definitions one can claim not to be anti because they are not extremely intolerant.  So by this definition I can assume you are pro Mormon since you are not anti.  You must agree with it  since you are not extremely intolerant.

[ebeddoulos]

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.

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 think your argument to be fallacious, sir, at best.

[KevinG]

ebeddoulos, on 26 March 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

I think your argument to be fallacious, sir, at best.

Anti-fallaciousist!

[thesometimesaint]

KevinG:

That's a hard one especially for children. We all want and need our parents to be truely good.
All I can say is that time and distance help, but there is no quick, and easy cure. Most of us will get but two chances at good parents. To have them, and/or to be them.

[KevinG]

thesometimesaint, on 26 March 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

KevinG:

That's a hard one especially for children. We all want and need our parents to be truely good.
All I can say is that time and distance help, but there is no quick, and easy cure. Most of us will get but two chances at good parents. To have them, and/or to be them.

Thanks!  She has done a wonderful job of honoring them as parents for what they do good while not putting any further generations of children at risk for abusive behaviors.  This has required a delicate balancing act on our part.  I bristle at those who contend with others then turn to scold those who defend themselves from their contentious behavior.

That is a far cry from "an eye for an eye".

[ebeddoulos]

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 ...

Which dictionary?

Edited by ebeddoulos, 26 March 2012 - 12:11 PM.

[ebeddoulos]

KevinG, on 26 March 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

Anti-fallaciousist!

I stand convicted!

[KevinG]

frankenstein, on 26 March 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

I have clearly stated my position.

That is debatable.  If it is clear re-stating it here should not be a problem.

Quote

You want me to move goal posts to suit your position.

Wrong.

Meanwhile the CFRs are stacking up.

[frankenstein]

KevinG, on 26 March 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

That is debatable.  If it is clear re-stating it here should not be a problem.
Wrong.
Meanwhile the CFRs are stacking up.

Go back and read my posts, then look at your CFR, look how your worded and qualified/justified your position.

I have no obligation to defend a position that is not mine. I have been clear in my position and will not jot move goal posts to address a position I have not put forth.

Eye for an eye is essentially the board rule on labels and conduct, such an excuse for conduct of those who claim the only true church is not in accordance with Gospel; those who claim the only true Church have a duty to act a certain way regardless of the conduct of everyone else; the failure of A to follow the Golden Rule does not exempt B from following the Golden Rule;

Edited by frankenstein, 26 March 2012 - 02:07 PM.

[Sky]

frankenstein, on 26 March 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

the failure of A to follow the Golden Rule does not exempt B from following the Golden Rule;

Not to be nitpicky, but the failure of B to follow the golden rule does not exempt A from following the Golden Rule,  either.  See how it goes both ways?