Anti - Anti - Mormon (A Labeling Difficulty)

[ERayR]

I consider myself to be a humanist and a secularist.  It wouldn’t be incorrect to call me a metaphysical naturalist.

 

When I politely accept invitations to discuss Mormonism, I am occasionally called an anti-Mormon.  It seems the label is used not because it describes what I believe and why, but rather, it serves as a convenient club with which to beat me and dismiss my views.  Calling people like me “anti-Mormon” is as true and useful as calling believers anti-non-Mormons.

 

Question:  Are you in word or deed against (attempting to stop or harm Mormonism) Mormonism?  If you are then you are Anti-Mormon.  If you are not then you are not.  An academic interest or philosophical difference would not qualify you as one. 

[Analytics]

Question:  Are you in word or deed against (attempting to stop or harm Mormonism) Mormonism?  If you are then you are Anti-Mormon.  If you are not then you are not.  An academic interest or philosophical difference would not qualify you as one. 

 

Are you trying to stop, harm, or diminish non-Mormonism?  In other words, do you try to identify non-Mormons and convince them to stop being non-Mormons?  If so, you are anti-non-Mormon.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Analytics

[Analytics]

As far as I have seen you are a reasonable man, and not anti anything except unreasonableness

 

Thanks Mike.  Have a wonderful New Year!

[ERayR]

Are you trying to stop, harm, or diminish non-Mormonism?  In other words, do you try to identify non-Mormons and convince them to stop being non-Mormons?  If so, you are anti-non-Mormon.

 

I don't try to stop anybody from being non-Mormon.  If they are interested I share what works for me.  If it works for them I am glad I could help.

[strappinglad]

I'm still trying to get my head around the concept of an " anti-Nephi-Lehi " and you want me to try to figure out an anti-anti Mormon. Give me a break !!!

If you spend more than 5 minutes a month trying to discourage, put down, disparage , destroy ,or otherwise mess with another group or individual , then you are anti-( name your poison ).Most if not all humans are anti- something.

[ERayR]

I'm still trying to get my head around the concept of an " anti-Nephi-Lehi " and you want me to try to figure out an anti-anti Mormon. Give me a break !!!

If you spend more than 5 minutes a month trying to discourage, put down, disparage , destroy ,or otherwise mess with another group or individual , then you are anti-( name your poison ).Most if not all humans are anti- something.

 

I don't look at being anti as necessarily a bad thing.  It all depends on what we oppose.  There are some things we should oppose.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

but rather, it serves as a convenient club with which to beat me and dismiss my views. 

I think that is about all it has a use for. And I am not sure that is all that useful.

[mormonnewb]

I'm not a fan of the term "anti-Mormon" because it is an easy way to dismiss your critics. It's the equivalent of calling someone an "anti-Semite." Except that I've yet to meet anyone who has such intense negative feelings about Mormons.

They may doubt the validity of our prophet, but I wouldn't consider that being anti-Mormon. After all, I don't know if I believe that Mohammed was a prophet but that doesn't make me anti-Muslim.

I wouldn't even call protesters at GC by that term. They may mock our beliefs and practices but so do I in just about every talk I give in church and I'm only a little anti-Mormon

Seriously, I think we should reserve the term anti -Mormon for that rare person who has a general hatred for Mormons. The kind of person who would say that we have horns or that we regularly stab babies in the temple (when we all know that baby stabbing is reserved for special occasions).

In that context, we Mormons have it pretty good. Most people tend to have a positive impression of us as neighbors, co-workers and friends. Sure, they may think we have a "wacky theology," but we consider ourselves to be "the one true church," so I guess the feeling is mutual.

[TJayT]

On a recent thread ("miraculous" Anti Conversion Stories) I was labeled “an anti-Mormon” (post #78).  The primary evidence offered was my membership at Mars Hill Church and defense of the preaching pastor (which I had disclosed previously on another thread).

 

The purpose of the label was to discredit my observations and perspective.  And while cheap ad-hominem convinces few—I’m still a little irked.  Here’s what really bothers me about it:

 

I’m in no way anti-Mormon because I’m in no way anti any person, regardless how they choose to identify themselves (at root, we’re all image-bearers of God, Genesis 1:26).   I love Mormons.  I have a number of them in my family.  Not mere words, I sacrifice my time and my money—gladly and without condition.  But I am critical of the doctrines, policies and practices promoted by the LDS Church.  And I’m also critical of the LDS Church’s cultural implications (e.g., the ridiculous liquor laws when I visit family in Utah).

 

To make political analogy, I’m critical of much Republican Party ideology.  But no reasonable person labels people with my views “anti-Republican”—doing so would message hostility that isn’t felt and isn’t fair.  (Instead they call us Democrats, and I’ve no problem with that.  Occasional hysterics & poor judgment notwithstanding—we’re all Americans when the rubber meets the road.)

 

In my mind, there should be sharp distinction made between being “anti-Mormon” (a thankfully rare pathological condition) vs. opposition to a system of beliefs & practices.  Can we start making that distinction now and thereby drop the anti-Mormon label on this board?  99+% of the time it’s unfair and it never aids the discussion.

 

If not, why not?

 ]

While I have found that most people using this argument are playing word games I also tend to not use the term, since it seems to have been applied far to liberally in the past. Just staying critic or counter cultist depending on the person in question tends to go across better anyway, and still get the point across.

[Suzie]

In my mind, there should be sharp distinction made between being “anti-Mormon” (a thankfully rare pathological condition) vs. opposition to a system of beliefs & practices.

 

But isn't "anti" means actually that: "opposition"? If you oppose to a system of beliefs and practices such as Mormonism, then it makes you an Anti-Mormon. I think the problem is that in the Church the term has a stigma but so does the word "ignorant" or so many other terms. Being critical is one thing, opposing is another.

[cinepro]

On a recent thread ("miraculous" Anti Conversion Stories) I was labeled “an anti-Mormon” (post #78).  The primary evidence offered was my membership at Mars Hill Church and defense of the preaching pastor (which I had disclosed previously on another thread).

 

The purpose of the label was to discredit my observations and perspective.  And while cheap ad-hominem convinces few—I’m still a little irked.  Here’s what really bothers me about it:

 

I’m in no way anti-Mormon because I’m in no way anti any person, regardless how they choose to identify themselves (at root, we’re all image-bearers of God, Genesis 1:26).   I love Mormons.  I have a number of them in my family.  Not mere words, I sacrifice my time and my money—gladly and without condition.  But I am critical of the doctrines, policies and practices promoted by the LDS Church.  And I’m also critical of the LDS Church’s cultural implications (e.g., the ridiculous liquor laws when I visit family in Utah).

 

To make political analogy, I’m critical of much Republican Party ideology.  But no reasonable person labels people with my views “anti-Republican”—doing so would message hostility that isn’t felt and isn’t fair.  (Instead they call us Democrats, and I’ve no problem with that.  Occasional hysterics & poor judgment notwithstanding—we’re all Americans when the rubber meets the road.)

 

In my mind, there should be sharp distinction made between being “anti-Mormon” (a thankfully rare pathological condition) vs. opposition to a system of beliefs & practices.  Can we start making that distinction now and thereby drop the anti-Mormon label on this board?  99+% of the time it’s unfair and it never aids the discussion.

 

If not, why not?

 

--Erik

______________________

You labeled me

I’ll label you

So I dub thee unforgiven

--Metallica, 1991 

 

 

Quick question for you, Five Solas. 

 

If you were presented with a button that would end "Mormonism", would you press it?  Meaning that by doing so, the entire Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be peaceably dissolved, all its property sold off, its website shut down, all its printing presses mothballed or sold off, and all future meetings and services cancelled.  All current humanitarian assets would be turned over to the Red Cross and other charitable organizations.  LDS members would be encouraged to continue to worship in another faith of their choosing.

 

Would you do it?

 

Edited January 2, 2014 by cinepro

[Five Solas]

Quick question for you, Five Solas. 

 

If you were presented with a button that would end "Mormonism", would you press it?  Meaning that by doing so, the entire Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be peaceably dissolved, all its property sold off, its website shut down, all its printing presses mothballed or sold off, and all future meetings and services cancelled.  All current humanitarian assets would be turned over to the Red Cross and other other charitable organizations.  LDS members would be encouraged to continue to worship in another faith of their choosing.

 

Would you do it?

 

Nope

[Thinking]

Anti-Mormonism Style Guide:

The official name of the the movement that opposes the doctrines and practices of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Anti-Mormonism. This full name was not given by revelation, but communicates the hate the sin but love the sinner attitude. While the term "Anti-Mormon" has long been publicly applied to the movement as a nickname, it is not an authorized title, and Anti-Mormonsim discourages its use.

When writing about the Anti-Mormonism, please follow these guidelines:

• In all references, the full name is preferred: "Anti-Mormonism."
• Please avoid the use of "Antis" or "Anti-Mormons."
• A shortened reference should not be needed since Anti Mormonism is short enough.
• When referring to participants in the movement, the term "Mormonism Critic" is preferred, though "LDS Critic" is acceptable.

[mfbukowski]

I don't try to stop anybody from being non-Mormon.  If they are interested I share what works for me.  If it works for them I am glad I could help.

I used to go on Catholic boards to defend Mormonism.  It started to feel to me that I was becoming "anti-Catholic" which I really did not want to be.  I have major problems with the Catholic position and will debate them as much as is necessary, but I am never trying to destroy someone's faith.

 

Don't know what that makes me- but labels either way really don't bother me.

[jwhitlock]

On a recent thread ("miraculous" Anti Conversion Stories) I was labeled “an anti-Mormon” (post #78).  The primary evidence offered was my membership at Mars Hill Church and defense of the preaching pastor (which I had disclosed previously on another thread).

 

The purpose of the label was to discredit my observations and perspective.  And while cheap ad-hominem convinces few—I’m still a little irked.  Here’s what really bothers me about it:

 

I’m in no way anti-Mormon because I’m in no way anti any person, regardless how they choose to identify themselves (at root, we’re all image-bearers of God, Genesis 1:26).   I love Mormons.  I have a number of them in my family.  Not mere words, I sacrifice my time and my money—gladly and without condition.  But I am critical of the doctrines, policies and practices promoted by the LDS Church.  And I’m also critical of the LDS Church’s cultural implications (e.g., the ridiculous liquor laws when I visit family in Utah).

 

To make political analogy, I’m critical of much Republican Party ideology.  But no reasonable person labels people with my views “anti-Republican”—doing so would message hostility that isn’t felt and isn’t fair.  (Instead they call us Democrats, and I’ve no problem with that.  Occasional hysterics & poor judgment notwithstanding—we’re all Americans when the rubber meets the road.)

 

In my mind, there should be sharp distinction made between being “anti-Mormon” (a thankfully rare pathological condition) vs. opposition to a system of beliefs & practices.  Can we start making that distinction now and thereby drop the anti-Mormon label on this board?  99+% of the time it’s unfair and it never aids the discussion.

 

If not, why not?

 

--Erik

______________________

You labeled me

I’ll label you

So I dub thee unforgiven

--Metallica, 1991 

 

Since it was my post you referred to, I'll respond. I do NOT use critic and anti-Mormon interchangeably; I understand the difference and use the term anti-Mormon when it's evident that there is significant bias towards both the church and its members. From what you post here, you fit the bill for being an anti-Mormon, as follows:

 

- You support and agree with an individual (Pastor Mark) whose pronouncements demean both the church and its members. Pastor Mark is an anti-Mormon in every classic sense of the word, and brings his own brand of crude humor to bear in making that very clear (Mormonism is a stinking pile of dog***, for instance). All you have to do is read what he writes, and you'll understand how he feels about Mormonism and Mormons. You defend his anti-Mormon rhetoric.

- You have persisted in defending several negative stereotypes you've made about Mormons as people, something that is anti-Mormon in nature. Critics of the church tend to steer clear of those kinds if things since they understand how it undermines their credibility.

 

Over time, one of the red flags I see raised by anti-Mormons is that they invariably claim to actually "love" Mormons. Granny Geer, for instance, was especially adept at that, until you actually met her face to face. It was then that her hatred of Mormonism and Mormons became rather clearly evident.

 

Critics talk carefully about the problems they see in the church, and often try to do so in terms that address their perceived problem, and not about the character of the church as a whole. Pastor Mark not only demeans members of the church, but in referring to the character of the church in the way he does, he also demeans the character of those who are faithful members of the church. How could anyone who isn't a simpleminded ignoramus belong to a church that is so obviously and totally idiotic? That's Pastor Mark's methodology, and it's what you defend.

 

Maybe your protestations about being called an anti-Mormon would have some basis if you didn't so readily support Mars Hill and its pastor, and if you didn't engage in judgmental, demeaning stereotypes about members of the church. As it is, from your posting, you pretty much fit the bill. You don't limit yourself to issues as critic would; you attack the character of people and the character of the church.

 

I'll tell you what; I'll give you some free advice on what you can do to graduate to the level of "critic" and move out of the morass of being an anti-Mormon:

 

- Repudiate the ugly stereotype once and for all that Mormons aren't Christians.

- Quit supporting people like Pastor Mark whose only purpose seems to be to demean people and churches he doesn't like.

- Quit the negative stereotyping of Mormons in the way you have been doing.

 

Good luck!

[CV75]

Anti suggests hostility and mindless opposition (to me at least).

Your words and actions can easily dispell this interpretation, and there's no telling that others are thinking about you when they use it. I would just ignore any name-calling and let your arguments speak for themselves. If anyone dispalys "hostility and mindless opposition" toward you in their posts, adress the issue accordingly.

[Calm]

Nope

Why not?

[cinepro]

Nope

 

Then I would say that, whatever you are, you're not an "anti-mormon".

 

And as an example of how I apply my criteria, I am not an "anti-Catholic", but I am an "anti-Scientologist".  If someone gave me such a button for the Church of Scientology, I would press it.

[strappinglad]

But but but ... Tom , and and and ... John ...

[Five Solas]

Why not?

a curious tangent, this.  what would it accomplish, calmoriah?  the old adage, out-of-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire comes to my mind.  Mormonism has been described as a gateway to atheism (or at least agnosticism).  and while I haven't seen hard stats on the matter, there's plenty of anecdotal evidence around (some in my extended family).  no, I'm not suggesting Mormons are preferable to atheists (or vice-versa).  further I don't see a Biblical requirement for believers to press buttons to attain conversions.  the implication here is that God must be some sort of vending machine.   

 

why do you think anyone might answer, "yes?"

 

--Erik

[Five Solas]

Your words and actions can easily dispell this interpretation, and there's no telling that others are thinking about you when they use it. I would just ignore any name-calling and let your arguments speak for themselves. If anyone dispalys "hostility and mindless opposition" toward you in their posts, adress the issue accordingly.

I suppose there must be a certain richness to all this.  A Christian complains when LDS label him anti-Mormon.  And Mormons (not all of them, of course) complain at the slightest hint their theology of God/Gods isn't Christian (post #6 herein if anyone needs a refresher).   

 

Appreciate the response, CV75

 

--Erik

[Vance]

I'm not a fan of the term "anti-Mormon" because it is an easy way to dismiss your critics.

Only the stupid/irrational/ignorant/dishonest ones.

[Coreyb]

I'm still trying to get my head around the concept of an " anti-Nephi-Lehi " and you want me to try to figure out an anti-anti Mormon. Give me a break !!!

If you spend more than 5 minutes a month trying to discourage, put down, disparage , destroy ,or otherwise mess with another group or individual , then you are anti-( name your poison ).Most if not all humans are anti- something.

I think it means a non Nephite Lehite 

[jwhitlock]

a curious tangent, this.  what would it accomplish, calmoriah?  the old adage, out-of-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire comes to my mind.  Mormonism has been described as a gateway to atheism (or at least agnosticism).  and while I haven't seen hard stats on the matter, there's plenty of anecdotal evidence around (some in my extended family).  no, I'm not suggesting Mormons are preferable to atheists (or vice-versa).  further I don't see a Biblical requirement for believers to press buttons to attain conversions.  the implication here is that God must be some sort of vending machine.   

 

why do you think anyone might answer, "yes?"

 

--Erik

 

Nice tap dancing - all while taking another shot at Mormonism in general.

[jwhitlock]

I suppose there must be a certain richness to all this.  A Christian complains when LDS label him anti-Mormon.  And Mormons (not all of them, of course) complain at the slightest hint their theology of God/Gods isn't Christian (post #6 herein if anyone needs a refresher).   

 

Appreciate the response, CV75

 

--Erik

 

I'll help you get back on track here since you're re-defining things in order to try to deflect. Here's some rephrasing that I think is more accurate:

 

- A person who makes generalized attacks on both the church and its members complains when LDS Christians label him an anti-Mormon.

- LDS Christians find accusations from "orthodox" Christians that they, as a group, cannot come to Christ and have no saving relationship with Christ to be reprehensible.

 

Glad to be of help.