Definition of "anti-Mormon"

[rhinomelon]

Good luck getting all the members of the Church to agree on the definition. It's not going to happen.

Oh, I wasn't hoping to get everyone in the whole church on the same page! Heck, y'all can't even agree on how many Gods there are;) I was hoping to get a normative definition for use on this message board. That way, if someone says I'm an anti-Mormon, I can point to the definition and say yes or no. It saves time, instead of going back and forth trying to figure out if the name-caller is using it in a pejorative way (as they almost always are).

So far, the first definition appears to be winning in a landslide.

Quite a few voted for this, but I wonder how many really thought about it. I know a number of Mormons who find things about LDS doctrine and practice sufficiently funny to make fun of them. (And I'm not just talking about green jello.) I also know quite a few non-Mormons who in appropriate company would make fun of Mormonism, but whom I wouldn't consider anti-Mormon. Does cracking Mormon jokes really "make one anti-Mormon"?

Good point. I was thinking mockery in terms of derision, not in terms of cracking wise when you know everyone's having a good time. I've made jokes about certain LDS topics with my LDS friends that might have been considered mean-spirited if they were taken out of the context of the friendship. I was thinking more of people who mock in order to demean, as in people who brag about buying garments on Ebay and the like.

Always an interesting subject. But we will never reach a normative definition. Several years ago at Sunstone this was discussed and I believe Van Hale gave the best definition, that it is someone who is actively trying to destroy the church and convert members away from it. Certainly someone could fine issues with this definition, but it is the best I have heard. Simply disagreeing privately or publicly and even publishing criticisms of the church I do not believe makes you anti-Mormon any more than publicly criticizing American politicians or the U.S. government and policy automatically make a person anti-American. But actively trying to bring the country down would qualify one as anti-American.

Yes, it's a tricky topic. I wonder, would it make any difference to those who prefer the simple "If you are against LDS doctrine in any sense you are anti-Mormon" definition to consider that, by the same token, this makes the LDS church and its members anti-Catholic, anti-Baptist, anti-Muslim, and anti-Semitic?

Interesting results so far. Keep polling!

Take care, everyone

[JLFuller]

Quite a few voted for this, but I wonder how many really thought about it. I know a number of Mormons who find things about LDS doctrine and practice sufficiently funny to make fun of them. (And I'm not just talking about green jello.) I also know quite a few non-Mormons who in appropriate company would make fun of Mormonism, but whom I wouldn't consider anti-Mormon. Does cracking Mormon jokes really "make one anti-Mormon"?

Food for thought.

Best,

-Chris

Mocking is derisive. It is intended to humiliate and hold up to scorn or ridicule. Laughing has nothing to do with it.

[Ray Agostini]

Here are a few discussions on the topic from around the Bloggernacle:

Dave Banack, "Defining 'Anti-Mormon'," Dave's Mormon Inquiry, January 5, 2006.

J. Nelson-Seawright, "Six Anti-Mormonisms," By Common Consent, November 29, 2006.

Kent Larsen, "The Anti-Mormon Label," Times & Seasons, March 17, 2009.

Those links are helpful, the last one in particular:

I guess motivations are the core of the issue. They are often difficult to know. I think that the “persecution complex” we Mormons sometimes unconsciously fall into regularly color our reactions to what we see in the news and what we hear from others, making it very easy to label things as “anti-Mormon.”

Since I first started thinking about a “Mormon anti-defamation league,” one organization has, sort-of, filled that role–FAIR. I don’t have enough knowledge of what FAIR does to really judge if they fill the role the way I think it should be filled (not that my judgment is absolute) or if I have any criticism. At the least, I have the impression that FAIR isn’t looking at the news in a comprehensive way to identify defamation. Nor do I have the impression that any standard, rigorous definition for anti-Mormon or defamation has been set or is in use.

Perhaps that is what is needed–a clear definition for “anti-Mormon” and guidelines for how to apply it. And a way of judging motivations fairly.

In the mean time, we would do well to be very, very cautious about how and when we use the term “anti-Mormon.”

Being called an anti-Mormon doesn't offend me, no more than being called atheist or agnostic, though I'm none of those, but probably in some ways I am "anti-Mormon" as defined in the first link, but note the bold I've inserted:

Anti-Mormons of Private Conviction. Individuals who quietly believe, in their own hearts and minds, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not God’s only true and living church have committed themselves to opposition to one central tenet of Mormonism. As such, these individuals stand against the Mormon movement and therefore meet the basic definition of “anti-Mormonism.” On the other hand, anti-Mormons of private conviction are not guilty of any act that hurts the church’s missionary efforts, retention rates, or public reputation in any way. It seems likely that almost all non-Mormons who know anything about Mormonism are anti-Mormons of private conviction. Some members of the church may be, as well.

I don't believe in the "only true Church" idea. I presume many who opposed the Black ban would have been considered "anti-Mormon". And those who oppose any current teachings, practices or beliefs of the Church, whether they are in actuality right or wrong, would be considered anti-Mormon by some. But one must decide whether this is negative or an attack, or just a strong difference of opinion. Don't make enemies out of people who just have strong, but different opinions. They might not want to be your enemy, in fact may appreciate all the good in your Church.

As the 13th Article of Faith states:

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

I don't find anything "lovely, praiseworthy or of good report" in polygamy, whether in principle or practice, and I know some members don't either. The opposition to polygamy goes back to the foundations of Mormonism, and indirectly lead to Joseph Smith's death. And as Joseph Smith himself said on one occasion, a man is not necessarily a bad man because he has different ideas or beliefs. And he knew what the reactions would be had he publicly revealed that polygamy was being practiced, because he knew that by all normal societal definitions, it was not "lovely, praiseworthy, or of good report".

[Chris Smith]

Mocking is derisive. It is intended to humiliate and hold up to scorn or ridicule. Laughing has nothing to do with it.

The line can be quite thin. One man's laughing is another man's mocking.

[Daniel Peterson]

I take the position (a minority view) that oppostion to the LDS Church is antiMormonism. The manner and spirit with which the opposition is done is simply style.

I agree.

[Ray Agostini]

I agree.

Would you consider some of your views of Islam as being "anti-Muslim"?

[Daniel Peterson]

Would you consider some of your views of Islam as being "anti-Muslim"?

No.

[Ray Agostini]

No.

But you don't accept that Muhammad is the "only true messenger/prophet of God".

[Daniel Peterson]

But you don't accept that Muhammad is the "only true messenger/prophet of God".

Nor do Muslims.

What you perhaps intended to say is that I don't accept Muhammad as a true messenger or prophet of God.

Which may or may not be true. I'm not fully decided on the question.

But I think you mean to say that, if I don't accept Muhammad as a true messenger or prophet of God, that makes me anti-Muslim.

You seem imagine this on the grounds that I've said that disagreement with Mormon claims makes one an anti-Mormon, so that, by analogy, disagreement with Muslim claims would make me an anti-Muslim.

The problem is, though, that I didn't say that disagreement with Mormon claims makes one an anti-Mormon.

I said that I agree with the idea that opposition to the LDS Church is anti-Mormonism.

That's a distinct and different concept.

[William the Conqueror]

I typically define an antiMormon as one who lies, uses yellow journalism, or negatively sensationalizes about the Church. I have expanded that to include members of the Church in any standing who are in opposition to significant doctrines or policies of the Church and use their "good standing" or TR as justification for their "rightness" of being in opposition.

That sure lets Billy off the hook!

[Daniel Peterson]

That sure lets Billy off the hook!

To a large degree, I think Bill the Conq is right on this. And Billy shouldn't be let off the hook -- which suggests that the definition is problematic.

[Ray Agostini]

Nor do Muslims.

Yes, I understand that Muslims consider Christ a prophet.

What you perhaps intended to say is that I don't accept Muhammad as a true messenger or prophet of God.

Which may or may not be true. I'm not fully decided on the question.

If he was a true messenger of God, and you do eventually decide that, I'm sure you can see some emerging conflict with your Mormon beliefs, because Muhammad = true prophet, and Joseph Smith = true prophet, is problematic. However, if you accept that Muhammah "only received a portion of God's light", you could make a compromise, but devout Muslims wouldn't take kindly to that definition.

But I think you mean to say that, if I don't accept Muhammad as a true messenger or prophet of God, that makes me anti-Muslim.

I didn't say you are anti-Muslim, the question was rhetorical. The comparison was to people who don't accept that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, or may be undecided, and who don't believe that the Church is "the only true Church". So my point was, are they "anti-Mormon"? Your answer seems to indicate - No. They are no more anti-Mormon than you are anti-Muslim.

The problem is, though, that I didn't say that disagreement with Mormon claims makes one an anti-Mormon.

I said that I agree with the idea that opposition to the LDS Church is anti-Mormonism.

That's a distinct and different concept.

That doesn't seem to be what Bsix was arguing. Bsix wrote:

I take the position (a minority view) that oppostion to the LDS Church is antiMormonism. The manner and spirit with which the opposition is done is simply style.

What is opposition? If I state that I don't believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is "the only true Church on earth", is that "opposition to the Church"? If I state that polygamy was a false doctrine, is that opposition to the Church? Or should I say, to be a "polite anti-Mormon" (a Bsix definition), "I'm undecided whether polygamy was a false doctrine"?

[Daniel Peterson]

If he was a true messenger of God, and you do eventually decide that, I'm sure you can see some emerging conflict with your Mormon beliefs, because Muhammad = true prophet, and Joseph Smith = true prophet, is problematic.

It's always possible that the existing historical documents (including the Qurâ??an) don't adequately or accurately represent Muhammad's teachings. Indeed, in some areas I think that's probable.

I didn't say you are anti-Muslim, the question was rhetorical.

I understand that.

The comparison was to people who don't accept that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, or may be undecided, and who don't believe that the Church is "the only true Church". So my point was, are they "anti-Mormon"? Your answer seems to indicate - No. They are no more anti-Mormon than you are anti-Muslim.

That's correct.

That doesn't seem to be what Bsix was arguing. Bsix wrote:

I know what Bsix wrote. I quoted it and said that I agree with it.

What is opposition?

That's a related but distinct issue.

If I state that I don't believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is "the only true Church on earth", is that "opposition to the Church"?

Not as such, no.

If I state that polygamy was a false doctrine, is that opposition to the Church?

As such, no.

Although I would weigh that statement very differently if it came from a member of the Church than if it came from a non-member.

Or should I say, to be a "polite anti-Mormon" (a Bsix definition), "I'm undecided whether polygamy was a false doctrine"?

I agree with Bsix that one can be a polite anti-Mormon. I'm not sure, though, that you've caught what he means -- which seems to me rather obvious and uncontroversial.

[Ray Agostini]

I agree with Bsix that one can be a polite anti-Mormon. I'm not sure, though, that you've caught what he means -- which seems to me rather obvious and uncontroversial.

Here again is what Bsix wrote in his first post on this thread:

I love Rhino. As nice and gentle as the day is long. He is a pleasure to exchange ideas with. However, based on his many posts on this MORMON message board...I know that he is opposed to Mormonism. He witnesses his faith to Mormons and hopes to convert them. He is supportive of apologetic approaches that attempt to counter and debunk LDS teachings. Rhino is not a typical Evangelical, he has some degree of focus on the subject of Mormonism. As such, I would put him in the 'antiMormon' category.

Only one person voted that Rhino is an anti-Mormon, and I suppose that would have to be Bsix? IOW, according to Bsix, Rhino is a "polite anti-Mormon", but still an anti-Mormon.

Therefore you agree with Bsix that Rhino is a "polite anti-Mormon"? You said you agree with his view.

[Daniel Peterson]

Only one person voted that Rhino is an anti-Mormon, and I suppose that would have to be Bsix? IOW, according to Bsix, Rhino is a "polite anti-Mormon", but still an anti-Mormon.

Therefore you agree with Bsix that Rhino is a "polite anti-Mormon"? You said you agree with his view.

Truthfully, I haven't paid much systematic attention to rhinomelon.

I do know that he's polite.

If, however, he's focused on disputing or countering Mormonism to any significant degree, I would have no difficulty at all in categorizing him as an "anti-Mormon."

Anti-Mormons don't have to scream, froth, drool, rage, lie, or be stupid to merit the title. All they have to do is oppose Mormonism. It's simple. That's what the prefix anti- means, as I've pointed out approximately 3617 times on this board alone.

[Ray Agostini]

Truthfully, I haven't paid much systematic attention to rhinomelon.

I do know that he's polite.

If, however, he's focused on disputing or countering Mormonism to any significant degree, I would have no difficulty at all in categorizing him as an "anti-Mormon."

Anti-Mormons don't have to scream, froth, drool, rage, lie, or be stupid to merit the title. All they have to do is oppose Mormonism. It's simple. That's what the prefix anti- means, as I've pointed out approximately 3617 times on this board alone.

I'll accept that since Bsix appears to be the only one who voted Rhino as anti-Mormon.

I'll concede, then, according to your definition, that I'm anti-Mormon, along with Brent Metcalfe and Dan Vogel. I do oppose polygamy, and vocally. Though I hardly make a fuss about the "only true Church" bit. The Catholics make the same claim, and I see no need to blast that from the rooftops.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'll concede, then, according to your definition, that I'm anti-Mormon . . . I do oppose polygamy, and vocally.

If you want to call yourself "anti-Mormon," I suppose that's your choice.

I don't necessarily think that vocal disagreement with one particular Mormon doctrine or practice automatically makes a person an "anti-Mormon," but I'll certainly concede your right to be an anti-Mormon if you like.

along with Brent Metcalfe and Dan Vogel.

They may be. I see them as somewhat borderline cases, and am not particularly eager to classify people along black and white lines. If you want to insist that they are, though, I won't challenge you on it. You're welcome to your opinion.

[Ray Agostini]

They may be. I see them as somewhat borderline cases, and am not particularly eager to classify people along black and white lines. If you want to insist that they are, though, I won't challenge you on it. You're welcome to your opinion.

Well you said you liked, and agreed, with Professor Robinson's article.

For years anti-Mormons have hammered the Church from the outside, insisting that Joseph Smith and the Latter-day Saint scriptures he produced were not what they claimed to be. By and large the Latter-day Saints simply ignored these attacks. Whether Signature Books and its authors will convince the Saints of the same hostile propositions by attacking from the inside remains to be seen....

Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of Signature Books camouflaged as a "Latter-day Saint" press. I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up.

I don't call that "borderline".

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't call that "borderline".

Nor do I.

I think that Signature Books is, on the whole, a secularizing anti-Mormon press.

But that doesn't mean that everybody who has ever published with them (including, say, Louis Midgley) is an anti-Mormon, nor that everything they've ever published (including, say, the journals of Wilford Woodruff) is anti-Mormon.

I think Dan Vogel sees himself as a serious historian, and I'm inclined, though I think he's a very bad one in certain essential ways, to agree with him. I have reason to believe that he was once much more zealously hostile to the Church than he now seems to be, and Michael Marquardt, another Signature author, has expressly declared his abandonment of his former proselytizing anti-Mormonism. People change. And they change roles from moment to moment and from project to project.

If you want a nice, simple, black-and-white schema from me on this subject, you're not going to get it.

[Ray Agostini]

If you want a nice, simple, black-and-white schema from me on this subject, you're not going to get it.

That's not what I was looking for. It just puzzled me why you agreed with Bsix, which to me was a very obvious "black-and-white schema".

I haven't known you to be like that.

[Daniel Peterson]

Opposition to Mormonism is anti-Mormonism. It's that simple.

Just as opposition to Communism is anti-Communism and just as opposing abortion means being anti-abortion. Just as opposition to Freemasonry was anti-Masonry and opposing slavery made one anti-slavery.

I've never understood why some appear to find this concept so difficult to grasp.

[Ray Agostini]

Opposition to Mormonism is anti-Mormonism. It's that simple.

Just as opposition to Communism is anti-Communism and just as opposing abortion means being anti-abortion. Just as opposition to Freemasonry was anti-Masonry and opposing slavery made one anti-slavery.

I've never understood why some appear to find this concept so difficult to grasp.

I have accordingly adjusted by signature line.

[Daniel Peterson]

I have accordingly adjusted my signature line.

To each his own.

As I say, if you want to be known as an anti-Mormon, that's your privilege. You should understand, though, that you can't compel others to think of you that way, no matter how much you might want to do so.

[Analytics]

Anti-Mormons don't have to scream, froth, drool, rage, lie, or be stupid to merit the title. All they have to do is oppose Mormonism. It's simple. That's what the prefix anti- means, as I've pointed out approximately 3617 times on this board alone.

This reminds me of a classic Pahoranism. We were going back and forth about some historical thing, and he made a reference to some Mormons who had been murdered, and then said to me something to the effect, â??as an anti-Mormon, you are undoubtedly okay with that.â?

Opposing the religion of Mormonism and opposing Mormons themselves are two different things. Given that "opposing Mormonism" can mean anything from disputing Mormonismâ??s truth claims on the Internet to burning down the Mormon churchâ??s assets, and given that "opposing Mormons" can mean anything from opposing their efforts of converting others to opposing their right to live, the term is ripe for equivocation.

[Daniel Peterson]

Given that "opposing Mormonism" can mean anything from disputing Mormonismâ??s truth claims on the Internet to burning down the Mormon churchâ??s assets, and given that "opposing Mormons" can mean anything from opposing their efforts of converting others to opposing their right to live, the term is ripe for equivocation.

Being an active opponent of abortion can mean campaigning against pro-abortion political candidates, writing essays arguing against abortion, dynamiting abortion clinics, or shooting abortionists. That doesn't mean that the term anti-abortion is too equivocal to be used.

Being an anti-Communist could mean supporting strong military defense against Soviet expansionism, writing a critique of Das Kapital, campaigning against the French or Italian Communist parties, or invading Cuba. That doesn't mean that the term anti-Communist was too equivocal to be useful.