Labels And Their Connotations...

[ERayR]

I read a quote attributed to Joseph Smith wherein he spoke on being kind to animals, he stated that how is lion to learn to lay down with the lamb unless man sets the example.

The same principle applies here. Those who claim to belong to the only true Church have the greater duty to live a higher standard, those who claim to follow the only true Church have the greater duty to follow Christs teachings.

It is laughable and a sad degradation of one self for a follower of the only true Church to justify their lower standard of conduct based on the conduct of other who are not duty bound to follow a higher standard.

Christ used labels, but as the King of kings, and having full knowledge those whom he spoke too that was His right. Last I checked, Christ was not posting on this board, and I am confident that no one here knows the thoughts, intent and heart of another person as Christ would that person.

I challenge thought who claim the only true Church to live a higher standard without regard to how others live. What is their to be desired of the only true Church if its followers can not show it?

Last time I looked it was not wrong to use a a word to mean what its common meaning is defined to mean. If someone takes umbrage to a word used in its proper definition then the fault lies not with the user but eith the one who takes offense. A great deal of the time the offense is an attempt to control the discourse.

[thesometimesaint]

Context my friend context.

Three simple words. "I love you" carry a host of meanings.

I love you

I love you

I love you

[KevinG]

A great deal of the time the offense is an attempt to control the discourse.

Excuse my cynicism but I think you pegged the primary reason people retreat to lecturing others on civility after having thrown the first stone.

[ebeddoulos]

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.

[ERayR]

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.

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.

[frankenstein]

I knew the justifications would appear and I was not disappointed.

Let us consider the very low standard allowed on the board, this low standard is "eye for an eye".

None of the labels a purpose, the labels are only used for well poisoning and character assination.

[frankenstein]

It's a two-way street.

Not exactly, where does Christ teach a two way street, He did not. He taught personal responsiblity, regardless of how others treated you.

[KevinG]

I knew the justifications would appear and I was not disappointed.

Let us consider the very low standard allowed on the board, this low standard is "eye for an eye".

None of the labels a purpose, the labels are only used for well poisoning and character assination.

I will try to phrase this as delicately as your sensitivities seem to allow... I believe you are in error.

The board does not have standards - people do. Each individual is responsible for how they communicate as well as how they interpret the communications they receive. Charity is required on both sides of the exchange.

Some people here are very polite and mean spirited.

Some are well meaning and impolite.

Do not confuse polite with nice or charitable. This is how ravening wolves pretend to be sheep.

I do not confuse people who sew contention and discord with "nice" or "polite" or simple "critics". I see them for what they are and do not appreciate attempts to stifle my end of the discourse by claiming offense after initiating an attack.

What offense did Christ commit when he declared: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto ^awhited ^bsepulchres, which indeed appear ^cbeautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all ^duncleanness.

As for me I would prefer a bleating sheep to a smooth wolf any day.

[KevinG]

Not exactly, where does Christ teach a two way street, He did not. He taught personal responsiblity, regardless of how others treated you.

This sounds like a two way street to me...

1 ^aJudge not, that ye be not ^bjudged.

2 For with what ^ajudgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what ^bmeasure ye mete, it shall be ^cmeasured to you again.

3 ^aAnd why beholdest thou the ^bmote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the ^cbeam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou ^ahypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

[ERayR]

I knew the justifications would appear and I was not disappointed.

Let us consider the very low standard allowed on the board, this low standard is "eye for an eye".

None of the labels a purpose, the labels are only used for well poisoning and character assination.

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 yet in a preceding post ebeddoulos has seen fit to redefine it as:

"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

[Sky]

Not exactly, where does Christ teach a two way street, He did not. He taught personal responsiblity, regardless of how others treated you.

Well, there is that whole “golden rule” thing, right? That applies to everybody, doesn’t it? I thought most people professed to believe in the golden rule, whether they call themselves Saints or not.

I just get tired of some critics complaining about how they get treated when they are actually the worst offenders.

[KevinG]

I threw a rock in a puddle and it had the temerity to splash mud upon my shoes.

[frankenstein]

Keep up with the justifications.

[frankenstein]

Well, there is that whole “golden rule” thing, right? That applies to everybody, doesn’t it? I thought most people professed to believe in the golden rule, whether they call themselves Saints or not.

I just get tired of some critics complaining about how they get treated when they are actually the worst offenders.

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

[KevinG]

Keep up with the justifications.

Show me where I have unfairly labelled someone and I will discuss that with you. Please provide the context of the conversation.

Your general condemnation of defenders of the LDS faith is so generic as to be meaningless. While the good, the bad and the ugly can be found on either side of the debate it is my experience that more vitriol and contention has come from the camp opposed to the LDS church and what it stands for than any apologist group.

In fact I cannot even stand to browse the internet for Mormon related articles at times due to the sheer amount of vitriol aimed at Mormons who otherwise lead peaceful and regular lives.

As far as this board goes the ugliest comments get deleted by the moderators on a regular basis - so remember some of the most compelling evidences against the anti-Mormons are in the dustbin.

Edited March 26, 2012 by KevinG

[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]

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]

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:

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]

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]

I just happen to have a different opinion than you.

Heretic!

[frankenstein]

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]

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]

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]

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 March 26, 2012 by KevinG