Labels And Their Connotations...

[ERayR]

For the critics who take offense at the labels anti-mormon, critic and apostate can you suggest improvements to the statements ebeddoulos provided below:

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.

Yes, remove the qualifiers added to the definition. Stick with anti means against or opposed to.

World English Dictionary anti (ˈæntɪ) — adj 1. opposed to a party, policy, attitude, etc: he won't join because he is rather anti — n 2. an opponent of a party, policy, etc

When one begins to embellish definitions to suit their own needs they destroy the effectiveness of the language.

With ebeddoulos definitions one can claim not to be anti because they are not extremely intolerant. So by this definition I can assume you are pro Mormon since you are not anti. You must agree with it since you are not extremely intolerant.

[ebeddoulos]

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.

Huh? Who are you trying to kid? All words start out as private definitions. As they are used by more and more people in more and more venues, private definitions become the "common and general definition." Over time, private definitions continue to modify "the lexicons of society." That is why language in general and the English Language in specificity is so dynamic and fluid.

CFR: Specifically provide your source for the "common and general definition" for antiMormon. I think that you will find that antiMormon/anti-Mormon is not to be had in the following Lexicons of Society:

Oxford Dictionary:

http://oxforddiction...k&q=anti-mormon

Merriam-WebsterDictionary:

http://www.wordcentr...&va=anti-mormon

Dictionary.com:

http://dictionary.re...nti-mormon?s=ts

In addition, what part of my definitions, in detail if you please, do you find not "helpful?

I think your argument to be fallacious, sir, at best.

[KevinG]

I think your argument to be fallacious, sir, at best.

Anti-fallaciousist!

[thesometimesaint]

KevinG:

That's a hard one especially for children. We all want and need our parents to be truely good.

All I can say is that time and distance help, but there is no quick, and easy cure. Most of us will get but two chances at good parents. To have them, and/or to be them.

[KevinG]

KevinG:

That's a hard one especially for children. We all want and need our parents to be truely good.

All I can say is that time and distance help, but there is no quick, and easy cure. Most of us will get but two chances at good parents. To have them, and/or to be them.

Thanks! She has done a wonderful job of honoring them as parents for what they do good while not putting any further generations of children at risk for abusive behaviors. This has required a delicate balancing act on our part. I bristle at those who contend with others then turn to scold those who defend themselves from their contentious behavior.

That is a far cry from "an eye for an eye".

[ebeddoulos]

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 ...

Which dictionary?

Edited March 26, 2012 by ebeddoulos

[ebeddoulos]

Anti-fallaciousist!

I stand convicted!

[KevinG]

I have clearly stated my position.

That is debatable. If it is clear re-stating it here should not be a problem.

You want me to move goal posts to suit your position.

Wrong.

Meanwhile the CFRs are stacking up.

[frankenstein]

That is debatable. If it is clear re-stating it here should not be a problem.

Wrong.

Meanwhile the CFRs are stacking up.

Go back and read my posts, then look at your CFR, look how your worded and qualified/justified your position.

I have no obligation to defend a position that is not mine. I have been clear in my position and will not jot move goal posts to address a position I have not put forth.

Eye for an eye is essentially the board rule on labels and conduct, such an excuse for conduct of those who claim the only true church is not in accordance with Gospel; those who claim the only true Church have a duty to act a certain way regardless of the conduct of everyone else; the failure of A to follow the Golden Rule does not exempt B from following the Golden Rule;

Edited March 26, 2012 by frankenstein

[Sky]

the failure of A to follow the Golden Rule does not exempt B from following the Golden Rule;

Not to be nitpicky, but the failure of B to follow the golden rule does not exempt A from following the Golden Rule, either. See how it goes both ways?

[KevinG]

Go back and read my posts, then look at your one and only CFR, look how your worded and justified your position.

I have no obligation to defend a position that is not mine. I have been clear in my position and will not jot move goal posts to address a position I have not put forth.

Eye for and eye is essentially the board rule on labels, such an excuse for conduct of those who claim the only true church is not in accordance with Gospel; those who claim the only true Church have a duty to act a certain way regardless of the conduct of everyone else; the failure of A to follow the Golden Rule does not exempt B from following the Golden Rule;

I agree that no one is exempt from the Golden Rule. It is not conditional on the way another acts.

I don't agree that calling someone opposed to the principles and teachings of Mormonism an anti-Mormon is breaking the Golden Rule. Just as I think calling someone who defends their faith an apologist is appropriate.

Where this gets tricky is the intent of the person using the label. Apologist, Critic, Anti-Mormon, Apostate all have meaning that describes a persons status with an organization or position. In this sense they are useful. If however the label is used to demean, stereotype or undermine another that is a problem.

I personally avoid using labels in this manner - of course I have been guilty of offending others who felt my use of those labels was derogatory. This is why I tend to use critic more than anti-Mormon for anything more than the most egregious examples of virulent criticism.

I still have yet to see proof that "an eye for an eye" is the board position on name calling other than Selek's statement that the moderators will not enforce a rule that only one side is willing to honor. Even then if an abuse is reported posters are restricted and censured by moderators. I don't know the exact ratio of pro-LDS vs. con-LDS comments that are censured. I suspect it would be difficult to show the ratio, especially since the most virulent and nasty comments are removed from the board, but I'm sure both sides of the argument feel they are the ones on the short end of the judgement stick.

[frankenstein]

Not to be nitpicky, but the failure of B to follow the golden rule does not exempt A from following the Golden Rule, either. See how it goes both ways?

And your point is? Everyone is responsible for their own conduct, regardless of how everyone else acts. The stated board position is that labels can be used because other people use labels...I.e. the lower and done away with law of eye for eye. The Latter-Day Saint has a duty to abide by the Gospel and Higher law, regardless how others act toward the Latter-Day Saint.

So by claiming "well they did it first" is to debase onself to a lower no longer acceptable form of conduct, Doctrinally speaking.

[KevinG]

And your point is? Everyone is responsible for their own conduct, regardless of how everyone else acts. The stated board position is that labels can be used because other people use labels...I.e. the lower and done away with law of eye for eye.

Please show where this is the stated board position. http://www.mormondialogue.org/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

The Latter-Day Saint has a duty to abide by the Gospel and Higher law, regardless how others act toward the Latter-Day Saint.

True - but this is not to say they should be defenseless in responding to attacks just because the attacker is offended by the terms used to describe them.

So by claiming "well they did it first" is to debase onself to a lower no longer acceptable form of conduct, Doctrinally speaking.

I agree. Please show where someone on this board used the "they did it first" defense to excuse improper behavior towards others.

[Hestia]

I think we get the point and we are now getting criticism for unfair moderating.

[Sky]

And your point is? Everyone is responsible for their own conduct, regardless of how everyone else acts. The stated board position is that labels can be used because other people use labels...I.e. the lower and done away with law of eye for eye. The Latter-Day Saint has a duty to abide by the Gospel and Higher law, regardless how others act toward the Latter-Day Saint.

So by claiming "well they did it first" is to debase onself to a lower no longer acceptable form of conduct, Doctrinally speaking.

My point is eveybody should follow the Golden Rule, frakenstein. It doesn't matter if you are person A or person B. It's common courtesy. And when believers defend the faith, that doesn't mean that we are on lower moral ground. But I won't go in circles with you anymore. I have made my point clear enough.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Sky

[frankenstein]

My point is eveybody should follow the Golden Rule, frakenstein. It doesn't matter if you are person A or person B. It's common courtesy. And when believers defend the faith, that doesn't mean that we are on lower moral ground. But I won't go in circles with you anymore. I have made my point clear enough.

I never suggested that the Latter-Saint Defender is on lower moral for defending the faith, however using pejoratives, inflammatory, well piosoning, character assination - puts the user of such on lower moral ground especially if that end user claims Christ.

I think we mostly agree with each but are lost in each others phrasology.

[KevinG]

using pejoratives, inflammatory, well piosoning, character assination - puts the user of such on lower moral ground especially if that end user claims Christ.

I think we mostly agree with each but are lost in each others phrasology.

Can you point to some examples?

[KevinG]

I guess not.

So the not quite equivocation engaged in that the Mormons should be above pejoratives, inflammatory, well poisoning and character assassination does not come with an example of Mormons actually engaging in pejoratives, inflammatory language, well poisoning and character assassination?

[selek1]

I guess not.

So the not quite equivocation engaged in that the Mormons should be above pejoratives, inflammatory, well poisoning and character assassination does not come with an example of Mormons actually engaging in pejoratives, inflammatory language, well poisoning and character assassination?

Kevin, your argument is predicated on the flawed assumption that Francis is arguing in good faith.

Review his posts.

Every single instance in which he has demanded that the Saints can and must be held to a higher standard has been an attempt to intimidate them into silence.

His criticism on this regard is notoriously one-sided and in every single instance can be boiled down to a single, consistent, inescapable theme.

His theme?

"You Mormons Need To Shut up."

Edited March 27, 2012 by selek1

[Pahoran]

Kevin, your argument is predicated on the flawed assumption that Francis is arguing in good faith.

Review his posts.

Every single instance in which he has demanded that the Saints can and must be held to a higher standard has been an attempt to intimidate them into silence.

His criticism on this regard is notoriously one-sided and in every single instance can be boiled down to a single, consistent, inescapable theme.

His theme?

"You Mormons Need To Shut up."

And some people think you're grimly humourless.

That's one of the funniest posts I've read in a while.

But seriously, I really don't know what to make of Frankenstein. Whenever I see a post of his, I really don't know what to expect (unless it's an SSM thread, of course.) And that, of course, is the point that he misses: "labels" in the context of this forum are really just indicators of the expected trajectory of a poster's comments. An anti-Mormon is usually going to be arguing that Mormonism is wrong, horrible, destructive and (add more negative adjectives here.) If they're an EV anti-Mormon, they'll be appealing to standard Bible prooftexts, and if they're a Tannerite, they'll be trotting out the standard JoD prooftexts. An apostate can usually be expected to tell us how the Church should change to suit them, but may eventually admit that they wouldn't come back even if the Church did make the changes they demand. A "TBM" believes in the truth claims of the Church. An "apologist" has actual arguments to counter anti-Mormon arguments, and the anti-Mormons reflexively accuse the "apologists" of lying.

But Frankie blows hot and cold. Maybe we need a new category for posters like him; perhaps "Laodicean" will do.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LDSToronto]

And some people think you're grimly humourless.

That's one of the funniest posts I've read in a while.

But seriously, I really don't know what to make of Frankenstein. Whenever I see a post of his, I really don't know what to expect (unless it's an SSM thread, of course.) And that, of course, is the point that he misses: "labels" in the context of this forum are really just indicators of the expected trajectory of a poster's comments. An anti-Mormon is usually going to be arguing that Mormonism is wrong, horrible, destructive and (add more negative adjectives here.) If they're an EV anti-Mormon, they'll be appealing to standard Bible prooftexts, and if they're a Tannerite, they'll be trotting out the standard JoD prooftexts. An apostate can usually be expected to tell us how the Church should change to suit them, but may eventually admit that they wouldn't come back even if the Church did make the changes they demand. A "TBM" believes in the truth claims of the Church. An "apologist" has actual arguments to counter anti-Mormon arguments, and the anti-Mormons reflexively accuse the "apologists" of lying.

But Frankie blows hot and cold. Maybe we need a new category for posters like him; perhaps "Laodicean" will do.

Regards,

Pahoran

And you, Pahoran? I think it's only fair that, if you are going to label others, you should tell us how you'd label yourself.

H.

[The Nehor]

I dare someone to attempt to label me.

[selek1]

Pahoran,

I am loathe (even if I inadvertently started the trend) to turn this into a discussion of an individual poster (however enthusiastically wrong he may be ).

There have been several instances (much to my shock and chagrin) in which I agreed with him completely.

To be honest- in each case my first reaction was "My, what a juicy looking worm! But should I ignore that shiny metal thing on which it is hanging?"

Contrary to some of our other critics, I don't believe that Frankenstein is specifically or consistently malicious- but is rather a product of his political ideology.

I can even see instances in which we might interact without one or both bursting into flame.

And I admit I had to look up "laodicean".

Considering that the definition implies a lack of political commitment, I cannot say that it applies.

[selek1]

I dare someone to attempt to label me.

Irreverent.

What do I win?

[selek1]

And you, Pahoran? I think it's only fair that, if you are going to label others, you should tell us how you'd label yourself.

Well, I'm not Pahoran, but I think I'd go with something along the lines of "William Wallace- without the tact."

Myself?

"George S Patton without the natural reticence or tactical genius".