Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Apostate, Anti-Mormon - Different Or Same?


Recommended Posts

All,

I've noticed an increase in use of the anti-Mormon label around these parts lately (yes, applied to me, especially, but to others as well). I've also been accused of being an apostate, as have others. I suspect that there are some American cultural reasons for the increase in usage of this terminology of late.

Not looking for a pity party here; I won't entertain responses that that call me a whiner. Rather, I'd like a definition of 'anti-Mormon' and 'apostate', so I can see what you all really mean when you use the terms. Are the words interchangeable? What emotions do you attach to both words? How can you tell if a person is one, the other, or both?

Additionally, I'd like to hear from the mods. Respectfully, I ask - is calling someone an 'anti-Mormon' or an 'apostate' an acceptable form of labelling on MDD?

I hope for an enlightening discussion.

H.

Link to comment

To me an anti-mormon actively fights against the Church and/or its members .An apostate has fallen away from the doctrinal teachings. An anti-mormon may never have belonged to any religious organization.An apostate must have been a member at one time. An individual can be both anti and apostate.

I give these definitions with reference to LDS only. One can be an apostate Catholic or Buddist for that matter.

Edited by blackstrap
Link to comment

To me an anti-mormon actively fights against the Church and/or its members .An apostate has fallen away from the doctrinal teachings. An anti-mormon may never have belonged to any religious organization.An apostate must have been a member at one time. An individual can be both anti and apostate.

them's my sentiments

Link to comment

For what it's worth-

When i think of an anti-mormon, i think of someone who actively fights against the church. Someone who has the goal of breaking down the church and spends time workign toward that.

When i think of an apostate i think of someone who once had a testimony of the truths of the gospel and who now actively denies the same things they used to testify of.

Link to comment

For what it's worth-

When i think of an anti-mormon, i think of someone who actively fights against the church. Someone who has the goal of breaking down the church and spends time workign toward that.

Responding to you because your formatting was easier to split. When an 'anti-mormon' fights against the church, are they only an anti-mormon if they use lies and deceptions in their arguments, or are they also anti-mormons if they use truths that are uncomfortable or paint the church in a negative light?

When i think of an apostate i think of someone who once had a testimony of the truths of the gospel and who now actively denies the same things they used to testify of.

That is an interesting take. I always thought an apostate was someone who actively taught false doctrines or spread teachings contrary to church teachings. It seemed more than a denial or loss of testimony was required.

H.

Link to comment

Toronto you might as ask why coffee and violate the word of wisdom.

The terms used against you and many others are used by people who do not want to address and issue raised. This board is not the church, thus there is no definition for the terms you provided.

That's why I'd like the mods to chip in here, and answer the second part of my OP.

H.

Link to comment

Responding to you because your formatting was easier to split. When an 'anti-mormon' fights against the church, are they only an anti-mormon if they use lies and deceptions in their arguments, or are they also anti-mormons if they use truths that are uncomfortable or paint the church in a negative light?

If their goal is to destroy the church, then, in my opinion, they are anti the church, regardless of how they express their 'anti-ness' (how's that for a made up word!).

I mean, if i was anti-abortion, using truths that are uncomfortable or which paint abortion in a bad light wouldn't make me any less anti, right?

That is an interesting take. I always thought an apostate was someone who actively taught false doctrines or spread teachings contrary to church teachings. It seemed more than a denial or loss of testimony was required.

H.

I agree more with the dictionary definition of the term- "A person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle. Adjective: Abandoning such a belief or principle. Synonyms:

noun. renegade - turncoat - pervert - recreant - backslider

adjective. renegade - recreant"

Edited by bluebell
Link to comment
Toronto you might as ask why coffee and violate the word of wisdom.

The terms used against you and many others are used by people who do not want to address and issue raised. This board is not the church, thus there is no definition for the terms you provided.

That's false.

Blackstrap nailed it. Those terms convey actual information. It is valid to know where a person is coming from.

There was a time when Toronto frequently appealed to his standing as a counselor in a Stake Presidency to lend weight to his arguments. Evidently he thought then that his position relative to the Church was relevant to what he had to say. Why is it suddenly no longer relevant when he can no longer leverage it to his advantage?

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

An "anti-Mormon" would be Ed Decker. An "apostate" would be Ryan Gosling. I think. (He used to be a Mormon, right?)

Actually, I guess Ed Decker counts as both.

Edited by altersteve
Link to comment

If their goal is to destroy the church, then, in my opinion, they are anti the church, regardless of how they express their 'anti-ness' (how's that for a made up word!).

I mean, if i was anti-abortion, using truths that are uncomfortable or which paint abortion in a bad light wouldn't make me any less anti, right?

Fair point. This leads to a further question - How is the goal of an individual determined? Short of admitting, "I want to destroy the church", wouldn't it be near impossible to tell if someone who was exposing truths that harmed the church was an anti-mormon?

I agree more with the dictionary definition of the term- "A person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle. Adjective: Abandoning such a belief or principle. Synonyms:

noun. renegade - turncoat - pervert - recreant - backslider

adjective. renegade - recreant"

I would say that an apostate is someone who is in apostasy. According to the Book 1 - a person is in apostasy if they repeatedly act in clear and deliberate public opposition to the church or it's leaders; if they persist in teaching as doctrine information that is not church doctrine after they have been instructed by their bishop or a higher authority; continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects; join another church and advocate it's teachings.

H.

Link to comment

We have the same problem with those who use the word apologist to poison the well. I unsuccessfully asked an antagonistic poster to address individual positions instead of repeatedly responding to unnamed "apologists" in an uncomplimentary manner. We had stopped the use of anti-Mormon (critic was substituted) until the critics refused to respond in kind. We have another prominent critic doing it right now. If critics won't stop using apologist as a way to avoid addressing individual approaches, or as a slur, it is unfair to prevent the other side from using anti-Mormon in the same way. It is a lazy practice on both sides but if it is going to be enforced there has to be cooperation from all sides.

Link to comment

That's false.

Blackstrap nailed it. Those terms convey actual information. It is valid to know where a person is coming from.

There was a time when Toronto frequently appealed to his standing as a counselor in a Stake Presidency to lend weight to his arguments. Evidently he thought then that his position relative to the Church was relevant to what he had to say. Why is it suddenly no longer relevant when he can no longer leverage it to his advantage?

Regards,

Pahoran

I no longer hold a calling in the church, Pahoran. I resigned from my calling when I could no longer reconcile my beliefs to the church. It would be unfair to me and to the members I served. BTW, I never said I was counselor in a stake presidency. I said I was in a stake presidency. There are 5 callings in a stake presidency.

H.

Link to comment

Fair point. This leads to a further question - How is the goal of an individual determined? Short of admitting, "I want to destroy the church", wouldn't it be near impossible to tell if someone who was exposing truths that harmed the church was an anti-mormon?

I'm sure it's not possible to tell someone's goal 100% of the time, but i don't agree that it's always 'near impossible' to know someone's motivations.

People are usually really good at revealing who they are, even if they don't ever state it right out. It might take some time, but i would say that usually your (the general 'your') heart is going to shine through.

I would say that an apostate is someone who is in apostasy. According to the Book 1 - a person is in apostasy if they repeatedly act in clear and deliberate public opposition to the church or it's leaders; if they persist in teaching as doctrine information that is not church doctrine after they have been instructed by their bishop or a higher authority; continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects; join another church and advocate it's teachings.

H.

That works as well!

Link to comment
I no longer hold a calling in the church, Pahoran. I resigned from my calling when I could no longer reconcile my beliefs to the church.

Yes, the Church believes in moral rectitude and you don't.

But the fact remains that you used to remind us of your position, voluntarily, without prompting and frequently. Why are you suddenly shy about your new position?

It would be unfair to me and to the members I served. BTW, I never said I was counselor in a stake presidency. I said I was in a stake presidency. There are 5 callings in a stake presidency.

H.

There are three callings in a Stake Presidency. The Clerk and Exec Sec serve with the Presidency, but they are not part of it.

And I distinctly recall you referring to your Stake President in the third person; I also recall discussing with you about how you handled the role of giving Temple Recommend interviews. I do not recall that you ever chose to disabuse me of that mistake, if it was a mistake.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

An "anti-Mormon" would be Ed Decker. An "apostate" would be Ryan Gosling. I think. (He used to be a Mormon, right?)

Actually, I guess Ed Decker counts as both.

I don't ryan gosling as an apostate, bad actor, but not an apostate! I have someone in mind who I would think is an apostate but not anti-Mormon

Link to comment

Many anti-Mormons and apostates have anger issues towards the Church. And many of them are borderline obsessed with their former faith. They will find a way to criticize the Church's every move. At least the ones online. At least that is the way I see it.

But some might think I'm just an apologist who can't think for myself or see the truth in light of all the evidence.

How about we all just use the terms "critic" and "defender"? Would that make us all happy?

Link to comment

Yes, the Church believes in moral rectitude and you don't.

CFR.

But the fact remains that you used to remind us of your position, voluntarily, without prompting and frequently. Why are you suddenly shy about your new position?

My new position? I don't hold a calling, I'm inactive as a member, I have yet to resign, I don't hold a temple recommend... I've mentioned all of these things in many posts prior to this one. I'm unsure why you feel I am shy.

There are three callings in a Stake Presidency. The Clerk and Exec Sec serve with the Presidency, but they are not part of it.

You are incorrect. And I've held many callings, Pahoran...

And I distinctly recall you referring to your Stake President in the third person; I also recall discussing with you about how you handled the role of giving Temple Recommend interviews. I do not recall that you ever chose to disabuse me of that mistake, if it was a mistake.

Yes, I have mentioned temple recommends. I didn't lie. The rest is an exercise for the reader. That is a past life for me, but I will not divulge details of confidential conversations, no matter how I feel about the church.

H.

Link to comment

I don't ryan gosling as an apostate, bad actor, but not an apostate! I have someone in mind who I would think is an apostate but not anti-Mormon

Dude, he's a fantastic actor!

Agree to disagree I guess haha

Link to comment

Is there a significant difference between the behavior of an apostate, an anti-Mormon, or a simple troll, on an LDS board?

I think so. An apostate can still be activley seeking truth, an Anti will only tear down, a simple troll usually fit's the word simple and makes generalized statements with no references..

Link to comment
When an 'anti-mormon' fights against the church, are they only an anti-mormon if they use lies and deceptions in their arguments, or are they also anti-mormons if they use truths that are uncomfortable or paint the church in a negative light?

H.

What makes you believe the later is not the first?

Have you ever considered that nearly all of what is "uncomfortable" toward the Church and paints the Church in a "negative light" is in fact lies and deceptive argument? Just so you know, it in fact is. Not saying of course that there isn't any human fallibility in Church history, but nearly all claimed, and especially nearly all claimed against the Church itself is definitively lies, deception, and misrepresentation.

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...