Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whatever one might think of it, it is a serviceable term that is often quite apt, depending on the application. I strongly disagree with a.FairMormon Conference speaker of a few years ago who said we should retire the term. That smacks of political correctness, which I detest. 

Can you help me understand how you define the word “Mormon” in anti-Mormon and how that definition and usage fits with the Church’s style guide?

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Can you help me understand how you define the word “Mormon” in anti-Mormon and how that definition and usage fits with the Church’s style guide?

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide

Because it is better not to use Christ's name in describing those who are against His church???

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Because it is better not to use Christ's name in describing those who are against His church???

Anti-Christ is a scriptural term, not sure what the problem there is. But by your reasoning, it appears you agree that the Mormon in anti-Mormon is used in a way not keeping with the Church’s updated guidelines? You just think an exception needs to be made? Why not anti-Latter-day Saint? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate given the Church’s guidelines?

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, pogi said:

Speaking of histrionics, that was quite a post. :)

...and you're welcome.  I'm hoping you caught how silly this whole dropping the name Mormon is.  

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

President Nelson said it was wrong to refer to our Church as Mormon. You took that and assume the word itself is pure poison. If that were the case we would have to rename the Book of Mormon.

Not at all.  He indicated that people not refer to the Church as Mormon nor it's members.  If someone who argues the Church is wrong is anti-Mormon then clearly that is a violation in referencing the Church and/or it's members.  Thus, anti-Mormon is a problematic term, if one is to take Nelson seriously.  But I"m actually encouraged to see you and others not take his denunciations seriously.  It is kind of silly to imagine God getting offended and Satan getting wins because you and others continue to give the impression that the Church and it's members should appropriately be called Mormon.  

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The most intellectually astute anti-Mormon I ever knew was the Rev. Wesley Walters (Presbyterian), and he was a friend of mine.  He was very good at converting RLDS and LDS into non-Mormons or even anti-Mormons.  He converted an entire congregation of former RLDS in Independence, Missouri, into anti-Mormons.  He saw it as the Lord's work.  He went after Jehovah's Witnesses in the same way.

The notion that there are no anti-Mormons, or that there are not well-financed and well-trained anti-Mormons and anti-Mormon organizations out there is just plain silly.  However, they perform an important winnowing function.  The wheat must be winnowed from the chaff, and there must be opposition in all things.  The faith of the Saints must be tested, and the anti-Mormons are every bit as important as Lucifer in purifying the Saints.  We must be thankful for real choices, and for the free agency to make them.

Great.  He was opposed to the Church, therefore he is anti-Mormon.  And giving credence to the notion that being opposed to the Church is appropriately called anti-Mormon, defies the instruction that there should we should not allude to the Church or its members as Mormon.  I know it's silly to get all hung up on names, labels and words, like that.  But Nelson is telling us we should.  I simply reject his position as silly.  It seems like all those who are intent on using the term anti-Mormon are also laughing at Nelson's pettiness about the name.  

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Not at all.  He indicated that people not refer to the Church as Mormon nor it's members.  If someone who argues the Church is wrong is anti-Mormon then clearly that is a violation in referencing the Church and/or it's members.  Thus, anti-Mormon is a problematic term, if one is to take Nelson seriously.  But I"m actually encouraged to see you and others not take his denunciations seriously.  It is kind of silly to imagine God getting offended and Satan getting wins because you and others continue to give the impression that the Church and it's members should appropriately be called Mormon.  

This is an incredibly stupid and pedantic argument and you are a stupid person for making it. And no, your dumb extrapolation of what President Nelson’s statements mean are not reasonable or logical. If you were being intentionally dense and trying to troll us I would say you are doing a good job but your posts seem earnest and suggest intense smugness in your manifest idiocy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is an incredibly stupid and pedantic argument and you are a stupid person for making it. And no, your dumb extrapolation of what President Nelson’s statements mean are not reasonable or logical. If you were being intentionally dense and trying to troll us I would say you are doing a good job but your posts seem earnest and suggest intense smugness in your manifest idiocy.

I"d agree.  the notion that Mormon is problematic as a term is a pretty stupid position to hold.  I'm glad you got so reactive and upset with my post.  It says plenty to me about your thinking on this supposedly very "vital" issue.  

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I"d agree.  the notion that Mormon is problematic as a term is a pretty stupid position to hold.  I'm glad you got so reactive and upset with my post.  It says plenty to me about your thinking on this supposedly very "vital" issue.  

That is not what I said. I agree with President Nelson. I am sorry your reading comprehension is so pathetic. Have you considered some kind of remedial schooling to correct this deficiency?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is not what I said. I agree with President Nelson. I am sorry your reading comprehension is so pathetic. Have you considered some kind of remedial schooling to correct this deficiency?

Almighty Nehor (May you live forever), perhaps you could take a few precious moments from your day and explain to those of us with vastly inferior intellects how the word “Mormon” in anti-Mormon is being used. Per church guidelines directed by President Nelson, Mormon is not appropriate when referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it’s members, it’s doctrine, nor it’s associated culture. It is appropriate when referring to the man Mormon, the book named after him, and as an adjective in historic expressions. How does your use of the word Mormon here fit within the guidelines set forth by the Church. If it pleases the Nehor (May he live forever), please use small words so that those of us of weak and feeble intellect can understand. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Anti-Christ is a scriptural term, not sure what the problem there is. But by your reasoning, it appears you agree that the Mormon in anti-Mormon is used in a way not keeping with the Church’s updated guidelines? You just think an exception needs to be made? Why not anti-Latter-day Saint? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate given the Church’s guidelines?

I would not wish to paint a critic of the Church with and anti-Chris label or an anti-Mormon label. Maybe this has something to do with the new guidelines. I actually think the label should be done away with. There are critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in varying degrees. I think that the labels are a discouragement to reasoned discourse for those who maybe are willing to do so if the label is applied with a one size fits all glove. There are the more virulent critics who do not seem to wish to engage in a discussion but only to criticize. I can put those on mental ignore and cease trying to have a conversation with them. (That is getting easier all of the time since my mental is shrinking anyway. 😎)

Glenn

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

An anti Mormon (can we still use that term?) is someone who actively fights against the Church

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is not what I said. I agree with President Nelson. I am sorry your reading comprehension is so pathetic. Have you considered some kind of remedial schooling to correct this deficiency?

I think SeekingUnderstanding has said it well, as I've tried to express the same ultimate point.  If someone is opposed to the Church or its members, then to call him anti-Mormon is to refer to the Church or it's members as Mormons, which is explicitly what Nelson does not want you to do.  Maybe ultimately this will be an new exception.  But, at this point, I suppose that means the whole rule is silly.   What one would want to say, it seems to me, if one is anti the church and its members then that one should be called anti-Jesus Christ.  But that's silly particularly if Wesley Walters is being characterized as the main example of an anti the Church person, since he preached Jesus and him crucified.  

I like this discussion because it really puts the ridiculousness, as t seems you've helped point out, Nelson's assault on Mormon nicknames.  

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think SeekingUnderstanding has said it well, as I've tried to express the same ultimate point.  If someone is opposed to the Church or its members, then to call him anti-Mormon is to refer to the Church or it's members as Mormons, which is explicitly what Nelson does not want you to do.  Maybe ultimately this will be an new exception.  But, at this point, I suppose that means the whole rule is silly.   What one would want to say, it seems to me, if one is anti the church and its members then that one should be called anti-Jesus Christ.  But that's silly particularly if Wesley Walters is being characterized as the main example of an anti the Church person, since he preached Jesus and him crucified.  

I like this discussion because it really puts the ridiculousness, as t seems you've helped point out, Nelson's assault on Mormon nicknames.  

It certainly underscores the difficulties in finding functional alternatives to the word Mormon and Mormonism. I think referring to the church by it’s appropriate name is one thing, but as a descriptor of all things related to the church, no good alternatives have been put forth as evidenced by the continued use of the phrase anti-Mormon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

...and you're welcome.  I'm hoping you caught how silly this whole dropping the name Mormon is.  

You are entitled to your opinion.  I admit that it would not have been on the priority list if I was president, but I do understand and respect the scriptural justification he uses for his position, and I do sustain him in it.

To be honest, I actually agree with you on the term "anti-Mormon".  If we are intent on ditching the name Mormon, then anti-Mormon really should probably go as it is a term that is in reference to a person who is opposed to the church, which in this case is wrongly referred to as "Mormon".  I think people are reluctant to ditch it because the change is already inconvenient, and there aren't any good replacements.  I think the Lord is merciful in our imperfect obedience, however :)   I personally don't think you are as stupid as some might suggest.  Ditching the name "Mormon" is problematic in many ways, it is deeply rooted in our vernacular, and if we are to be perfectly obedient with President Nelson's request, then ant-Mormon really should go. Otherwise the "term" Mormon as used in reference to the church,will never really go away, and it will become confusing for nonmembers. We either need to ditch it completely and create a whole new vernacular, or keep it, in my opinion. 

The only correct use of the phrase "anti-Mormon" is when we apply it to someone like President Nelson.  He is the biggest anti-Mormon that I know of ;)

I will probably keep using the phrase until I can find something else to replace it with.

Edited by pogi
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The most intellectually astute anti-Mormon I ever knew was the Rev. Wesley Walters (Presbyterian), and he was a friend of mine.  He was very good at converting RLDS and LDS into non-Mormons or even anti-Mormons.  He converted an entire congregation of former RLDS in Independence, Missouri, into anti-Mormons.  He saw it as the Lord's work.  He went after Jehovah's Witnesses in the same way.

The notion that there are no anti-Mormons, or that there are not well-financed and well-trained anti-Mormons and anti-Mormon organizations out there is just plain silly.  However, they perform an important winnowing function.  The wheat must be winnowed from the chaff, and there must be opposition in all things.  The faith of the Saints must be tested, and the anti-Mormons are every bit as important as Lucifer in purifying the Saints.  We must be thankful for real choices, and for the free agency to make them.

It is interesting you mention Wesley Walters now. I read that paper by Mormon scholar Dr Petrey on Hugh Nibley's article in Church History where he critiqued Nibley's standards. It prompted me to retrieve a letter Walters sent to me in 1972 where he responded in seven typed pages on various issues in Nibley's paper. I sent a copy to Dr Petrey. and hope he might respond. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

It is interesting that you mention Wesley Walters. For an anti-Mormon he sure gets referenced a lot in Rough Stone Rolling. It was interesting that Nibley's article on the apostasy had been critiqued by an LDS scholar  Petrey.  If anyone is interested  I can upload the letters. They are all on one file.

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, aussieguy55 said:

It is interesting you mention Wesley Walters now. I read that paper by Mormon scholar Dr Petrey on Hugh Nibley's article in Church History where he critiqued Nibley's standards. It prompted me to retrieve a letter Walters sent to me in 1972 where he responded in seven typed pages on various issues in Nibley's paper. I sent a copy to Dr Petrey. and hope he might respond. 

 

26 minutes ago, aussieguy55 said:

It is interesting that you mention Wesley Walters. For an anti-Mormon he sure gets referenced a lot in Rough Stone Rolling. It was interesting that Nibley's article on the apostasy had been critiqued by an LDS scholar  Petrey.  If anyone is interested  I can upload the letters. They are all on one file.

Unlike some LDS historians, Richard Bushman was not afraid of Wes Walters, and he recognized that Wes had done some serious research and had asked some legitimate questions.   For those interested in the collected papers of Wes Walters, they are on deposit at Covenant Theological Seminary in St Louis, where the Library staff is very cordial and helpful.  For those who are LDS, there is also an LDS temple right next door.  In fact, last time I completed some research work at the Covenant Seminary Library, I was able to get some temple work done immediately afterward.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I don't like the word.

Critics of my church/faith/beliefs are not part of any single cohesive group, any more than people who dislike asparagus.  They're all various humans with various reasons for various opinions/beliefs.

 

Here is a report on why people leave, not actually created by the church, but an interesting study none the less.

https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/documents/faith_crisis_study/Faith_Crisis_Report_R24B.pdf

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I recognize some of my FB buddies in that study!  But not every critic has been a member and experienced a faith crisis.  There are also folks who watched a loved one get baptized and are now ticked off.   Lots and lots of people who attended that one class on Mormons their one church had that one year - taught by a "professional".  Some have been treated badly by a member, some really, really badly.  Some just have problems with authority, and find themselves living in Utah. 

I'd be fine with the term 'antimormon' if the critics of my faith/members/church/beliefs wanted to be known by that name.  But few do.  

Edited by LoudmouthMormon
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If we're trying to look at this fairly, I think that's the best definition.

Since discussing "anti-Mormon" is going to obviously lead to some impassioned feelings around here, let's talk about other things that people might be "anti."

For example, I would consider myself "anti-Scientologist."  I'm not ashamed of it.  I don't deny it.  I think the world would be a better place without Scientology.  I think at best it is a benign fraud and expensive waste of time, and at worst extremely harmful.  Now, I'm also respectful of peoples' freedom to choose to spend their time and money how they wish (to a degree), and don't advocate using the force of government to persecute Scientologists.  And I don't spend my time or money advocating against the CoS. 

But if a friend or loved one were considering getting involved with the group, I would try to talk them out of it.  And if the CoS filed for bankruptcy tomorrow and dissolved, I would think that was a great thing and the world was a better place.

So I would say anyone who feels the same way about the CoJCoLdS is an "anti-Mormon."  And I don't know why anyone who felt that way would be reluctant to use that label.  Maybe anti-Mormons need to do get the word out that you can be an anti-Mormon without lying or being a jerk.  But that's a PR problem, and PR problems can be solved.

Sure it makes sense for a person who opposes the Church and it's people as you describe to gladly embrace the term anti-Mormon.  But for a member to legitimize the term shows the member does not take seriously Nelson's claim that God doesn't want members to refer to the Church and it's members as Mormon, so much so he gets offended and Satan gets a toothy grin in the process.  I don't know where that puts us with what Nelson is though.  Do we say he lied when he claimed God doesn't want us to say Mormon when referencing members and the Church or do we consider he's just an old dude whose being too persnickety and since he's gods chosen his pickiness is but for a time and not to be taken seriously?  Or do we just consider him incapable of comprehending when he's giving GOd's will and when he's not?  Or a bit of a combination of the three?  

I admit I feel a bit encouraged that most members don't take Nelson's revelatory claim seriously.  It's kind of a silly one.  But, perhaps a little confused when members get upset and defensive.  

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

.........................................

Great.  He was opposed to the Church, therefore he is anti-Mormon.  And giving credence to the notion that being opposed to the Church is appropriately called anti-Mormon, defies the instruction that there should we should not allude to the Church or its members as Mormon.  I know it's silly to get all hung up on names, labels and words, like that.  But Nelson is telling us we should.  I simply reject his position as silly.  It seems like all those who are intent on using the term anti-Mormon are also laughing at Nelson's pettiness about the name.  

Pres Nelson is making a point about the centrality of Jesus Christ, which is no laughing matter.  His point is well taken.

The practical application of such directives to the normal use of such convenient shorthand terms as "anti-Mormon" seems unlikely to make much headway any time soon.  We all need to come to terms with that reality, stemelbuddy.  😎

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Almighty Nehor (May you live forever), perhaps you could take a few precious moments from your day and explain to those of us with vastly inferior intellects how the word “Mormon” in anti-Mormon is being used. Per church guidelines directed by President Nelson, Mormon is not appropriate when referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it’s members, it’s doctrine, nor it’s associated culture. It is appropriate when referring to the man Mormon, the book named after him, and as an adjective in historic expressions. How does your use of the word Mormon here fit within the guidelines set forth by the Church. If it pleases the Nehor (May he live forever), please use small words so that those of us of weak and feeble intellect can understand. 

Cuz dey no like Book of da Normans too. Lulz.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Unlike some LDS historians, Richard Bushman was not afraid of Wes Walters, and he recognized that Wes had done some serious research and had asked some legitimate questions.   For those interested in the collected papers of Wes Walters, they are on deposit at Covenant Theological Seminary in St Louis, where the Library staff is very cordial and helpful.  For those who are LDS, there is also an LDS temple right next door.  In fact, last time I completed some research work at the Covenant Seminary Library, I was able to get some temple work done immediately afterward.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

Both Michael Quinn and Dan Vogel visited him at his home where he was able to share material. He according to reports tried to convert them. I am sure he would not favor my current position as a progressive christian with doubts about the soul  and historicity of the early Old Testament.

Share this post


Link to post

anti-- a person who is opposed to a particular practice, party, policy, action, etc.

Mormon- the popular name given to a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

So by definition an anti-mormon would be a person who is opposed to a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints.   I guess that would be different than a person who is opposed to the Church itself as that would be anti-Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints or "anti-LDS church" or "anti-Mormon Church". 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Cuz dey no like Book of da Normans too. Lulz.

 

As always, the Nerhor’s (May he live forever) wisdom leaves me speechless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×