Definition of "anti-Mormon"

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I have accordingly adjusted by signature line.

You cannot be anti-Mormon...I do not know any "polite" anti-Mormons, as your signature line suggests.

[Daniel Peterson]

I do not know any "polite" anti-Mormons

I know several of them.

[Tarski]

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.

There is a reason and it is lack of associativity.

The ambiguity is found by considering the following.

1. Mormon (a Mormon person or the Mormon people)

2. Mormonism (A religion)

3. anti-(Mormonism)

4. anti-(Mormon)

5. (anti-(Mormon))-ism

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't see any particular ambiguity. None, anyway, that is more daunting than the similar ambiguities involved with such useful terms as anti-Communism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Americanism, and the like.

Mormon is an adjective. It can be used to denote Mormon art, Mormon people, Mormon doctrine, Mormon literature, Mormon architecture, Mormon history, Mormon country, Mormon practices.

To the extent that someone opposes a type of art, people, doctrine, literature, architecture, history, country, or practice because it's Mormon, that person is anti-Mormon.

[Tarski]

I don't see any particular ambiguity.

Well it is an ambiguity. It is among these for example:

Mormon is also a noun and in more than one way. I am a Mormon.

anti-(Mormonism)

(anti-(Mormon))-ism

Sometimes the ambiguous structure of a compound word can confuse--especially with rather new words.

I agree that a similar issue comes up with anti-Catholicism.

I also agree that one interpretation is more prominant and can almost always be settled from context.

But

Perhaps a coinage is in order and who better to do it?

What "ism" would describe being against the Mormon people as such?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I know several of them.

Pick one...

Matt Slick

Ed Decker

The Tanners

Bob Betts

Aaron Saft

Bill Keller

When I think "anti-Mormon" these are the names that come to mind. Your definition must be broader than mine.

[Tarski]

Well it is an ambiguity. It is among these for example:

Mormon is also a noun (at least in practice) and in more than one way. I am a Mormon.

anti-(Mormonism)

(anti-(Mormon))-ism

Sometimes the ambiguous structure of a compound word can confuse--especially with rather new words.

I agree that a similar issue comes up with anti-Catholicism.

I also agree that one interpretation is more prominant and can almost always be settled from context.

But

Perhaps a coinage is in order and who better to do it?

What "ism" would describe being against the Mormon people as such?

[Ray Agostini]

To the extent that someone opposes a type of art, people, doctrine, literature, architecture, history, country, or practice because it's Mormon, that person is anti-Mormon.

How does someone "oppose" Mormon art? Or even "oppose" Mormon literature? I've heard of art critics, and literature critics, but I wouldn't say they are "in opposition" to either, just criticising them. On the other hand, someone may be opposed to apologetics, but even there we have conundrums. Is Paul Osborne anti-Mormon because he opposes some apologetics? Is Rodney Meldrum anti-Mormon because he has criticised the Mesoamerican model for the Book of Mormon?

And is criticising apologetics even criticising Mormonism?? As Kevin Graham and many others have done.

[Daniel Peterson]

Pick one...

Matt Slick

Ed Decker

The Tanners

Bob Betts

Aaron Saft

Bill Keller

When I think "anti-Mormon" these are the names that come to mind. Your definition must be broader than mine.

It appears so.

I actually have pretty good relationships with several very vocal critics of the Church. We've eaten out together, exchanged gifts, wished each other well in various (but not all) pursuits, etc. They're not rude or dishonest, though they're terribly misguided. But they're definitely anti-Mormons. They've written books against Mormonism, published newspapers against the Church, lectured around the country against the Restoration, and so forth.

Well it is an ambiguity. It is among these for example:

Mormon is also a noun and in more than one way. I am a Mormon.

In that sense, Mormon is a nominalized adjective, with a noun-proper understood: For example, in the sentence He is a Mormon, the word person or man is implicit, as in He is a Mormon man. Such nominalized adjectives are very common in English and other languages. For example, we speak of the poor, the rich, the dispossessed, the disaffected, the wealthy, the dead, etc. But poor, rich, dispossessed, disaffected, wealthy, dead, and etc. are originally adjectives.

Sometimes the ambiguous structure of a compound word can confuse--especially with rather new words.

I agree that a similar issue comes up with anti-Catholicism.

I also agree that one interpretation is more prominant and can almost always be settled from context.

There is no question that natural languages contain multiple ambiguities. (Is lead a verb or a noun? Should read be pronounced like reed or like red? Does speech refer simply to human utterance or to an oration? Should I pronounce it address or address? And how does the latter differ from a dress? Only the context will tell.) Mathematics and symbolic logic are more precise, but nobody speaks them natively.

Still, unavoidable ambiguities don't in and of themselves mean that words aren't useful or should be retired. If they did, we'd be essentially reduced to silence.

Perhaps a coinage is in order and who better to do it?

What "ism" would describe being against the Mormon people as such?

Good luck!

How does someone "oppose" Mormon art? Or even "oppose" Mormon literature? I've heard of art critics, and literature critics, but I wouldn't say they are "in opposition" to either, just criticising them.

I don't need to have a real-world example in order to justify the existence of a logical category.

Still, for what it's worth, I've seen some comments about the architecture of LDS temples, for example (very commonly on the so-called "Recovery" board), that strike me as motivated entirely by odium theologicum rather than aesthetics. So I'm not sure that the logical category is entirely uninhabited.

And, of course, the building of LDS temples is routinely opposed by people who, though plainly motivated by religious hostility, would never dare to go before a city council or a county planning commission or a zoning committee with their real objections, but, instead, trot out supposed concerns about traffic flow, aesthetics, the height of a spire, noise [!], supposed threats to property values, and so forth. Which isn't to say that many don't really have genuine concerns about those issues, of course. Years ago, though, I recall reading a petition that was being generated to prevent the construction of the temple in Newport Beach, California. The comments started out sane, but then, as it went on, the signatories began pointing out that we're Satanists, that the temple is used to promote the oppression of women, that our theology is absurd, and the like -- objections that, if local government saw them as grounds for action, would logically have suggested that Mormon chapels and Mormons altogether have no place in Newport Beach at all, whatever the building code or the architecture involved. I remember really hoping that they would actually present that petition, with all its comments, to the local authorities. (No government in the United States would dare to block the construction of a place of worship on the grounds that it represented "unbiblical doctrines.") So, when opponents of the building actually went before the planning commission, they mentioned nothing of that, but phrased their complaints in terms that local officials could legally consider.

On the other hand, someone may be opposed to apologetics, but even there we have conundrums. Is Paul Osborne anti-Mormon because he opposes some apologetics? Is Rodney Meldrum anti-Mormon because he has criticised the Mesoamerican model for the Book of Mormon?

And is criticising apologetics even criticising Mormonism?? As Kevin Graham and many others have done.

No, not as such. Hence, there are no "conundrums" in this at all. The supposed "problems" that you cite aren't problematic for me or for my definition.

[Ray Agostini]

And, of course, the building of LDS temples is routinely opposed by people who, though plainly motivated by religious hostility, would never dare to go before a city council or a county planning commission or a zoning committee with their real objections, but, instead, trot out supposed concerns about traffic flow, aesthetics, the height of a spire, noise [!], supposed threats to property values, and so forth. Which isn't to say that many don't really have genuine concerns about those issues, of course. Years ago, though, I recall reading a petition that was being generated to prevent the construction of the temple in Newport Beach, California. The comments started out sane, but then, as it went on, the signatories began pointing out that we're Satanists, that the temple is used to promote the oppression of women, that our theology is absurd, and the like -- objections that, if local government saw them as grounds for action, would logically have suggested that Mormon chapels and Mormons altogether have no place in Newport Beach at all, whatever the building code or the architecture involved. I remember really hoping that they would actually present that petition, with all its comments, to the local authorities. (No government in the United States would dare to block the construction of a place of worship on the grounds that it represented "unbiblical doctrines.") So, when opponents of the building actually went before the planning commission, they mentioned nothing of that, but phrased their complaints in terms that local officials could legally consider.

No, not as such. Hence, there are no "conundrums" in this at all. The supposed "problems" that you cite aren't problematic for me or for my definition.

I get your point, but I suppose you realise that mosques get the same "opposition"? I don't know of any mosque, built anywhere in Sydney, that was not opposed by local residents (just like the Carlingford temple was opposed). Does that mean that those opposing the construction are "anti-Muslim", or "anti-Mormon"? Some may well be, but you can't make a broad generalisation about this. To say that the Lakemba Committee Against The Mosque is all filled with "anti-Muslims" is a pretty broad brush. You acknowledge this yourself, that the motivations may well be varied. But the fact remains that people may well oppose a temple or mosque without being anti-Muslim or anti-Mormon. So not everyone who opposes is anti-something.

[Daniel Peterson]

I get your point, but I suppose you realise that mosques get the same "opposition"?

I do, and I understand that that opposition springs from a similar mixture of motives.

Does that mean that those opposing the construction are "anti-Muslim", or "anti-Mormon"? Some may well be, but you can't make a broad generalisation about this.

I haven't, and I don't.

To say that the Lakemba Committee Against The Mosque is all filled with "anti-Muslims" is a pretty broad brush.

I've never said a word about the Lakemba Committee Against the Mosque.

But the fact remains that people may well oppose a temple or mosque without being anti-Muslim or anti-Mormon. So not everyone who opposes is anti-somrthing.

Obviously.

I'm puzzled, frankly, by your response to me on this issue. You keep doing battle with views that I don't hold, as if I did hold them.

[Ray Agostini]

I'm puzzled, frankly, by your response to me on this issue. You keep doing battle with views that I don't hold, as if I did hold them.

Let's rehash:

To the extent that someone opposes a type of art, people, doctrine, literature, architecture, history, country, or practice because it's Mormon, that person is anti-Mormon.

That is plainly not the case. See above.

[ERayR]

Pick one...

Matt Slick

Ed Decker

The Tanners

Bob Betts

Aaron Saft

Bill Keller

When I think "anti-Mormon" these are the names that come to mind. Your definition must be broader than mine.

Pa Pa Rhinomellon is a very polite anti-mormon . IMNSHO.

[Daniel Peterson]

Let's rehash:

That is plainly not the case. See above.

Sigh. I don't think you're reading what I'm saying carefully.

To the extent that someone opposes a type of art, people, doctrine, literature, architecture, history, country, or practice because it's Mormon, that person is anti-Mormon. [emphasis added]

To the extent that somebody opposes the construction of a Mormon temple or chapel because it's Mormon, and not for reasons of aesthetics or traffic flow or noise pollution [!] or something of that sort, that person's opposition is, precisely, anti-Mormon. To the extent that that person opposes the construction of a Mormon temple or chapel for reasons of aesthetics or traffic flow or noise pollution [!] or something of that sort, and not simply because it's Mormon, that person's opposition is not anti-Mormon.

Is this really so hard?

[Ray Agostini]

Sigh. I don't think you're reading what I'm saying carefully.

To the extent that somebody opposes the construction of a Mormon temple or chapel because it's Mormon, and not for reasons of aesthetics or traffic flow or noise pollution [!] or something of that sort, that person's opposition is, precisely, anti-Mormon. To the extent that that person opposes the construction of a Mormon temple or chapel for reasons of aesthetics or traffic flow or noise pollution [!] or something of that sort, and not simply because it's Mormon, that person's opposition is not anti-Mormon.

Is this really so hard?

So we are in agreement, then, that someone can oppose polygamy, apologetics, Dan Peterson, the "only true Church" idea, and not be opposed to Mormonism itself? That is, not be an anti-Mormon?

[Daniel Peterson]

So we are in agreement, then, that someone can oppose polygamy, apologetics, Dan Peterson, the "only true Church" idea, and not be opposed to Mormonism itself? That is, not be an anti-Mormon?

Have I ever suggested, anywhere, that disagreeing with me was intrinsically anti-Mormon?

As I've said, you seem to be doing battle with positions that I don't hold, as if, somehow, I actually did hold them. I don't understand why.

Can someone disagree with this or that apologetic argument, or with this or that apologetic position, without necessarily being anti-Mormon? Of course! Obviously. I've never so much as hinted otherwise.

Can somebody reject the whole enterprise of apologetics without necessarily being anti-Mormon? Of course. I've never said anything to the contrary. Ever. (Though I do believe that such a position would be rather silly. But that's a different matter.)

Can one argue against the notion that there is a single true religion or church without necessarily being anti-Mormon? Yes! Obviously. And I've never even whispered anything to suggest otherwise.

Can one disagree with polygamy without being anti-Mormon? Yes. Without a question. And I've never suggested anything to the contrary.

[Ray Agostini]

Have I ever suggested, anywhere, that disagreeing with me was intrinsically anti-Mormon?

As I've said, you seem to be doing battle with positions that I don't hold, as if, somehow, I actually did hold them. I don't understand why.

Can someone disagree with this or that apologetic argument, or with this or that apologetic position, without necessarily being anti-Mormon? Of course! Obviously. I've never so much as hinted otherwise.

Can somebody reject the whole enterprise of apologetics without necessarily being anti-Mormon? Of course. I've never said anything to the contrary. Ever. (Though I do believe that such a position would be rather silly. But that's a different matter.)

Can one argue against the notion that there is a single true religion or church without necessarily being anti-Mormon? Yes! Obviously. And I've never even whispered anything to suggest otherwise.

Can one disagree with polygamy without being anti-Mormon? Yes. Without a question. And I've never suggested anything to the contrary.

So what qualifies one to be a "polite anti-Mormon"? I'm really curious. You say you know several.

[Daniel Peterson]

So what qualifies one to be a "polite anti-Mormon"? I'm really curious. You say you know several.

To be polite, and to be opposed to Mormonism.

This isn't rocket science (to coin a phrase).

[Ray Agostini]

To be polite, and to be opposed to Mormonism.

This isn't rocket science (to coin a phrase).

What is "opposed to Mormonism"? Someone can disagree, even oppose some ideas, concepts, beliefs, yet not oppose Mormonism entirely? It seems so.

Rhino began this thread because he was concerned that some were labeling him "anti-Mormon", and wanted a more precise definition of the term, for this board, so he could later refer to it. BSix voted him an "anti-Mormon". Without knowing Rhino's background, you agreed with Bsix, and therefore gave defacto recognition to Bsix's definition of Rhino as "anti-Mormon". You said, "I agree".

What do you agree with? Bsix's idea that Rhino is a "polite anti-Mormon"? If you agreed with Bsix, then maybe you should have thought twice before endorsing, albeit unwittingly, his definition of Rhino as an "anti-Mormon"? That's how Rhino will read it, that you endorsed Bsix.

Bsix also argues:

The other is aggressive, confrontational, abrasive, and mocking.

Which one is antiMormon? Both oppose the Church to the same degree. The only thing that seperates them is the style and approach.

Bsix is in effect arguing that someone like Polygamy Porter or Mercury is on the same level as, say, Michael Marquardt.

You'd agree with that?

[Cold Steel]

Well, obviously, anyone who is religious and believes differently than the LDS, they by sheer definition, are anti-Mormons. But as the term is used, it would include a number of types of people:

• Those who believe the church is a deception and who oppose the church in an attempt to do others, and God, a service;
  
• Those who employ double standards in judging the church and its doctrine;
  
• Those who believe the church is misguided, and they study it with the intention of using the information they glean to sway someone to either leave the church or to refrain from joining the church;
  
• Those who vociferously oppose the church because of anger, resentment or revenge; or,
  
• Those who for their own purposes cherry pick, manufacture, mischaracterize or otherwise manipulate historical and theological information to create opposition, contention, or even violence against the church.
  

There must needs be an action associated with the term in my view. I disagree with Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, but I see them as a harmless bunch, even comical at times. That God would manifest Himself through a publishing company in such a dogmatic way indicates that followers, to me, take a rather unsophisticated approach to religion. If I were to discuss religion with a Jehovah's Witness, I would do so as I would any other church or religion.

Calvinism, however, I harbor some resentment towards in that Calvinists believe God to be a capricious, harsh judge of mankind. Still, I would not rush out to oppose them or to criticize them to a friend who leaned in that direction.

In short, as I get older, I become less anti-anyone religious, but instead view them as potential political allies against a far greater evil that threatens us all. It simply doesn't work when trying to tear down someone else.

Years ago, two personable J.W.s knocked on my door. I let them in, got them drinks, sat back and just listened. But their discussions, like ours, encouraged dialog. So I answered their questions as generally as I could without divulging my own religious views. Somehow they couldn't leave it alone and asked me outright what church I attended. I resisted, saying that I didn't want the discussion to digress into what I believed, but upon their promise, I told them. Looking back, I should have lied through my teeth, but it didn't occur to me, frankly. They were a little offset by this, but continued on.

The next week, they came with a friend, and it was clear that he had made anti-Mormonism part of his study. And as I feared, the discussion soon was in full sway regarding what was wrong with my religion and why, therefore, I needed to rethink things. Thus, I learned very little.

With Mormonism, so called, I see numerous correlations with the ancient church. It's one of the most self evident things I could ever relate to. I'm long over my bible bashing days, but I'm exposed to so many varying, and interesting views and I no longer feel threatened by the views of others, nor should they be threatened by Mormonism. But it's not just Mormonism and other "isms." I have one friend who believes so strongly in what she and her minister husband believe that they lecture me in absolutes. All prophecy was fulfilled in the days of Christ, they say, and no scripture in either the Old or New Testaments remains unfulfilled. It is, quite literally, a closed book â?? dare I say it, a sealed book! I can't resist challenging them on this and have tossed out some prophesies just to see how they believe they were fulfilled. To date, however, they're silent. It doesn't surprise me as it's a very aggressive stand to take.

So, those who want to discuss scriptures, the apostasy, prophecies, miracles, eschatology, scriptural interpretation and so forth, fine. If they're going down a list that includes moon men and Kinderhook plates, though, that's a whole different kettle. All I expect from the former is consistency, and I don't really expect anything from the latter. When my old Bible Church minister dropped by with two elders to inform my family and me that we were on "greased slides" to hell and deception, all I could think about was, why haven't you ever come here for a visit or to ask how I was doing before now? And why are you getting so angry? If God loves His children as you say, is he going to throw them in hell for making a miscalculation with the best of intentions? Everything in the Bible tended to indicate that God was more interested in what was in a man's heart.

Anyway, that's my take.

[Daniel Peterson]

What is "opposed to Mormonism"? Someone can disagree, even oppose some ideas, concepts, beliefs, yet not oppose Mormonism entirely? It seems so.

Yes, it does.

Rhino began this thread because he was concerned that some were labeling him "anti-Mormon", and wanted a more precise definition of the term, for this board, so he could later refer to it. BSix voted him an "anti-Mormon". Without knowing Rhino's background, you agreed with Bsix, and therefore gave defacto recognition to Bsix's definition of Rhino as "anti-Mormon". You said, "I agree".

What do you agree with? Bsix's idea that Rhino is a "polite anti-Mormon"? If you agreed with Bsix, then maybe you should have thought twice before endorsing, albeit unwittingly, his definition of Rhino as an "anti-Mormon"? That's how Rhino will read it, that you endorsed Bsix.

This is growing increasingly bizarre, Ray.

I quoted what I agreed with from Bsix. I said that I agreed with what I had quoted from him. What I quoted from him didn't mention rhinomelon and wasn't directly concerned with rhinomelon. I said nothing about rhinomelon. I quoted nothing about rhinomelon. I didn't say that I agreed (or that I disagreed) with Bsix's judgment of rhinomelon. I said nothing about rhinomelon.

When asked about rhinomelon, on this very thread, I said that I hadn't particularly followed what rhinomelon has posted, and really had no opinion about whether rhinomelon is or is not an anti-Mormon, though I do believe him to be polite.

Bsix is in effect arguing that someone like Polygamy Porter or Mercury is on the same level as, say, Michael Marquardt.

I see nothing whatsoever in what Bsix posted that would suggest such a stupid idea.

An anti-Mormon can be polite or rude, intelligent or stupid, fair or unfair, scholarly or ignorant, etc., etc. Just because two people are anti-Mormons, or Catholics, or vegans, or socialists, or astronomers, or accountants, that doesn't mean that they're equally bright, or equally just, or equally honest, or equally kind, or equally witty, or equally tall, or equally blonde, or equally anything else.

Moreover, for the record, Michael Marquardt has, for years now, distanced himself from his earlier anti-Mormon zeal, and would like to be viewed simply as a scholar of Mormon history, albeit an unbelieving one.

You'd agree with that?

This is growing tiresome, Ray. You keep attributing positions to me that I don't hold. If I hold a position, I'll say so. Okay?

Well, obviously, anyone who is religious and believes differently than the LDS, they by sheer definition, are anti-Mormons.

I disagree. I don't see non-Mormon and anti-Mormon as synonyms.

[Ray Agostini]

I see nothing whatsoever in what Bsix posted that would suggest such a stupid idea.

That is what he suggested. Read it again.

"Loud mouthed" anti-Mormons are on the same level as "polite anti-Mormons".

I do believe you know better than that. Who would ever equate, say, Dan Vogel with Polygamy Porter? Yet this is what Bsix was suggesting.

[Daniel Peterson]

That is what he suggested. Read it again.

"Loud mouthed" anti-Mormons are on the same level as "polite anti-Mormons".

That absolutely is not what he says. He expressly says that they're not.

Who would ever equate, say, Dan Vogel with Polygamy Porter? Yet this is what Bsix was suggesting.

That is absolutely not what he was suggesting.

Here's what he wrote:

I get the sense that we are defining "antiMormon" by means of its perjorative value...not as an expression of opposition to the LDS Church on any level.

Take two people...both are completely opposed to Mormonism., They consider Mormonism to be false and unChristian. They have a desire to target and proslyte to Mormons and bring them out of the Church. They participate in LDS message boards in opposition to Mormonism.They tend to support the use of debunking witnessing approaches as a reasonable approach to bringing Mormons out of the faith.

One uses opposes Mormonism in a manner that is laid back, non-confrontational, very pleasant, and non insulting.

The other is aggressive, confrontational, abrasive, and mocking.

Which one is antiMormon? Both oppose the Church to the same degree. The only thing that seperates them is the style and approach.

This is why 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 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.

Now, because of some of the truely offensive antiMormons out there...calling Rhino an antiMormon has an unintended negative and perjorative effect. Rhino is not in the same crassness league as the offensive antiMormons in regards to style. He is in the same camp in terms of his philosophical opposition to Mormonism.

I think we are better served by identifying those who work in opposition to Mormonism as antiMormons...and do more to recognize the differences between the degrees of style of antiMormonism.

When I sugest that someone like Rhino is 'antiMormon' I am categorizing his opposition to Mormonism...not making a statement about his personality or his approach.

You're fundamentally misrepresenting what Bsix said.

I've now quoted it above, though, so that everybody can easily see what he really wrote.

I also think that this important and very relevant post may have been overlooked:

There is a difference between being opposed to something and disagreeing with something. Anyone who opposes the Church is Anti-Mormon, but those who disagree, are not. For example, I am opposed to abortion (except in very rare circumstances), which makes me anti-abortion. However, I only disagree with many protestant doctrines, I do not oppose them.

To oppose means:

1. to act against or provide resistance to; combat.

2. to stand in the way of; hinder; obstruct.

3. to set as an opponent or adversary.

4. to be hostile or adverse to, as in opinion: to oppose a resolution in a debate.

5. to set as an obstacle or hindrance.

One can proselyte Mormons, debate Mormons, disagree with Mormons and, possibly, even dislike Mormons without being anti-Mormon, but if they oppose them, as defined above, then I would consider them anti-Mormon.

[Ray Agostini]

That absolutely is not what he says. He expressly says that they're not.

That is absolutely not what he was suggesting.

Here's what he wrote:

You're fundamentally misrepresenting what Bsix said.

I've now quoted it above, though, so that everybody can easily see what he really wrote.

I also think that this important and very relevant post may have been overlooked:

Read it again, Dan:

Now, because of some of the truely offensive antiMormons out there...calling Rhino an antiMormon has an unintended negative and perjorative effect. Rhino is not in the same crassness league as the offensive antiMormons in regards to style. He is in the same camp in terms of his philosophical opposition to Mormonism.

IOW, he's "camping" with anti-Mormons like PP and Merc. He is in the "same camp".

But the really big question here is, do you agree with Bsix about Rhino? I've been posting here since 2004, and nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever led me to believe that Rhino is an anti-Mormon.

Who is the one vote that Rhino is an "anti-Mormon"?

[Daniel Peterson]

IOW, he's "camping" with anti-Mormons like PP and Merc. He is in the "same camp".

If rhinomelon actively opposes Mormonism, then, in that bare sense, he's in the same camp. But only in that bare sense.

But the really big question here is, do you agree with Bsix about Rhino? I've been posting here since 2004, and nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever led me to believe that Rhino is an anti-Mormon.

For the third time, I've not paid enough systematic attention to rhinomelon's posts to have the basis for an opinion.

If he's actively opposed to Mormonism to a significant degree, then, to that degree, he is an anti-Mormon in the way I define the term and have always defined the term.

Who is the one vote that Rhino is an "anti-Mormon"?

I presume it was Bsix. Bsix acknowledged that his definition of anti-Mormon seemed to represent a minority position. I said that I agreed with his definition.

However, for the fourth time, I'm not in a position from which I can judge whether that definition applies to rhinomelon. I've not paid sufficient systematic attention to rhinomelon's posts to have the basis for an opinion. If he's actively opposed to Mormonism to a significant degree, then, to that degree, he's an anti-Mormon in the way I define the term and have always defined the term.