I'm Sorry, But I Really Love This Board

[Ahab]

Just now, smac97 said:

Here are the Guidelines.  I don't see any prohibition against the use of the word "anti-mormon."

Thanks,

-Smac

Interesting. I'm sure it was in the Guidelines before and I remember being surprised that it was specifically mentioned.  I don't see it in there now though, either, so I will feel more free in my use of that word now.

Like you I do not see it as an insult to someone who is anti or against what it means to be Mormon.  A person is either pro-Mormon or anti-Mormon or Mormon-neutral and I think it helps to understand where someone is, spiritually, along that spectrum both generally and also on each specific Mormon issue. 

I think care should be taken not to falsely label anyone, though.  Some people can seem to be anti-Mormon on an issue while only being Mormon-neutral but maybe while leaning toward anti-Mormon on that issue. 

[smac97]

On 5/27/2016 at 11:40 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

As I mentioned above, I too would use the term Anti-Mormon for anyone who purposely lies or knowingly distorts LDS doctrines for the purpose of deceiving others from belief in Mormonism. 

Dishonesty is not an inherent part of being "anti-Mormon."  Not in my view, anyway.  I also do not think that latent opposition warrants the descriptor.  But people who publicly / actively / affirmatively oppose the LDS Church and/or its doctrines / leaders / members are reasonably characterized as "anti-mormon."

Quote

But to use the term as a descriptor against those who engage in a honest discussion is an ad hominem and is a dishonest tool designed to stereotype the person you're having the discussion with and give you a self impose moral superiority over that person. 

Oh, malarky.  You are fine with using "Pro-Mormon" to describe people who support the LDS Church.  Is that "ad hominem" and a "dishonest tool" and a "stereotype?"  Nope, nope and nope.  

You are not being consistent here.  If "Pro-Mormon" is acceptable, then so too should be its antonym.

Quote

And frankly I will continue to call you out should you use it in discussions involving me in the future...for I will NOT concede that moral high ground to you. 

As you like.  You haven't come close to establishing that "anti-Mormon" is "an ad hominem and is a dishonest tool designed to stereotype."

I'm not sure why you are making such a big deal about this.  And the "moral high ground" comment is really out there.  How does my usage of the word "anti-Mormon" equate to me staking "the moral high ground" over you?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 29, 2020 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I just really enjoy the free exchange of information, the opportunity to both challenge and defend a position and I love the fact that it's not an echo chamber.  I also enjoy that nothing I say is taken at face value and for the most part everyone is respectful  

Thank you for allowing me to participate and thank you for holding me accountable. 

A surefire way to gain a mass of rep points right off the bat, eh Johnnie Cake?

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Dishonesty is not an inherent part of being "anti-Mormon."  Not in my view, anyway.  I also do not think that latent opposition warrants the descriptor.  But people who publicly / actively / affirmatively oppose the LDS Church and/or its doctrines / leaders / members is reasonably characterized as "anti-mormon."

Ah, malarky.  You are fine with using "Pro-Mormon" to describe people who support the LDS Church,  Is that "ad hominem" and a "dishonest tool" and a "stereotype?"  Nope, nope and nope.  

You are not being consistent here.  If "Pro-Mormon" is acceptable, then so too should be its antonym.

As you like.  You haven't come close to establishing that "anti-Mormon" is "an ad hominem and is a dishonest tool designed to stereotype."

I'm not sure why you are making such a big deal about this.  And the "moral high ground" comment is really out there.  How does my usage of the word "anti-Mormon" equate to me staking "the moral high ground" over you?  

Thanks,

-Smac

One can be anti-Mormon and be very civil about expressing his/her anti-Mormonism. One can even be honest -- albeit wrong and misguided -- in doing so.

As Smac quite correctly points out here, it has to do with one's attitude and behavior toward Mormonism, not courtesy and honesty necessarily, although some anti-Mormons do have problems with the latter traits.

And using the term has nothing whatever to do with "moral high ground."

 

Edited May 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

A surefire way to gain a mass of rep points right off the bat, eh Johnnie Cake?

I tried to take one away from him but the system wouldn't allow that.

Probably just another one of those bugs that I keep seeing and hearing about on this board.

[smac97]

On 5/27/2016 at 10:57 AM, Ahab said:

Interesting. I'm sure it was in the Guidelines before and I remember being surprised that it was specifically mentioned.  I don't see it in there now though, either, so I will feel more free in my use of that word now.

Like you I do not see it as an insult to someone who is anti or against what it means to be Mormon.  

Well, I think it has something of a negative connotation.  People of generally decent character, but who choose to publicly oppose and speak out against, say, Jews are aptly described as "anti-Semites."  Such persons will likely dislike that description of their behavior, but their dislike does not trump reality or the normative use of the English language.

Quote

A person is either pro-Mormon or anti-Mormon or Mormon-neutral and I think it helps to understand where someone is, spiritually, along that spectrum both generally and also on each specific Mormon issue. 

I'm generally not inclined to define people by their perspective on Mormonism until and unless they exhibit behavior plainly demonstrating and demarcating that perspective. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

I have a question for the very faithful on this board.  Would you rather that some of us were just not online?

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Interesting. I'm sure it was in the Guidelines before and I remember being surprised that it was specifically mentioned.  I don't see it in there now though, either, so I will feel more free in my use of that word now.

Like you I do not see it as an insult to someone who is anti or against what it means to be Mormon.  A person is either pro-Mormon or anti-Mormon or Mormon-neutral and I think it helps to understand where someone is, spiritually, along that spectrum both generally and also on each specific Mormon issue. 

I think care should be taken not to falsely label anyone, though.  Some people can seem to be anti-Mormon on an issue while only being Mormon-neutral but maybe while leaning toward anti-Mormon on that issue. 

As I have pointed out before, one can disbelieve in something and not be anti- that thing.

Incidentally, I have reviewed the guidelines on countless occasions over the years, and I've never seen a prohibition against use of the term anti-Mormon.

[smac97]

On 5/27/2016 at 11:18 AM, Jeanne said:

I have a question for the very faithful on this board.  Would you rather that some of us were just not online?

I don't understand.  What makes you think "the very faithful" would concern themselves with whether or not "some of us were just not online?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

Just now, Jeanne said:

I have a question for the very faithful on this board.  Would you rather that some of us were just not online?

No, not me.  I think having all perspectives present is a plus even though there "must needs be" opposition when there isn't agreement. 

And trying to get people to agree with me is part of the fun of me posting.

It wouldn't be nearly as much fun if everybody I talked to already agreed with me, with everybody just saying something like "yep" or "yup" or "uh-huh" or not even bothering to keep telling me tbat they already agree with me.

 

[jkwilliams]

33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I  use it at will when I deem it appropriate and have never been dinged for it. I'll probably continue to use it on occasion. It's a serviceable term.

In fact, part of my standing sig line contains the term. Which means it is present in each and every post I make.

I tend not to use it or the term "TBM," as both are loaded terms that don't lend themselves to civil discussion. The signature to me suggests that recognizing "anti-Mormon" as a loaded term is a kind of deception practiced by someone who "whispereth in their ears" (2 Nephi 28:21). That is a not-so-subtle equation of anti-Mormons with the devil, which again is kind of a nonstarter when trying to have a civil discussion. There are definitely people who are anti-Mormon in that they genuinely oppose the LDS church and work hard at that opposition. That said, it's not particularly charitable to link them to the devil, and it gets doubly problematic when the label "anti-Mormon" is applied haphazardly to anyone who disagrees with one's position. 

Likewise, people use TBM, which is supposedly shorthand for "true believing Mormon," but it is mostly used as a pejorative with the connotation of a willfully ignorant believer who doesn't question anything and accepts whatever he or she is told (cf. the odious "sheeple" label). I don't use it because most Mormons I know are thoughtful and have their own opinions. I guess I could use it when I deem it appropriate, but that's probably never, because I recognize it's a loaded and insulting term. So is "anti-Mormon."

Just saying.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, I think it has something of a negative connotation.  People of generally decent character, but who choose to publicly oppose and speak out against, say, Jews are aptly described as "anti-Semites."  Such persons will likely dislike that description of their behavior, but their dislike does not trump reality or the normative use of the English language.

I'm generally not inclined to define people by their perspective on Mormonism until and unless they exhibit behavior plainly demonstrating and demarcating that perspective. 

Thanks,

-Smac

While I do not approve of anti-Mormonism, whether or not the term is an insult depends on whether or not it is used accurately.

I would have no problem at all, for example, with being labeled anti-pornography, or anti-crime or even anti-redefinition of marriage.

I've never understood the mindset of someone who is truly anti-Mormon objecting to the term. To me it is logically incoherent.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I tend not to use it or the term "TBM," as both are loaded terms that don't lend themselves to civil discussion. The signature to me suggests that recognizing "anti-Mormon" as a loaded term is a kind of deception practiced by someone who "whispereth in their ears" (2 Nephi 28:21). That is a not-so-subtle equation of anti-Mormons with the devil, which again is kind of a nonstarter when trying to have a civil discussion. There are definitely people who are anti-Mormon in that they genuinely oppose the LDS church and work hard at that opposition. That said, it's not particularly charitable to link them to the devil, and it gets doubly problematic when the label "anti-Mormon" is applied haphazardly to anyone who disagrees with one's position. 

Likewise, people use TBM, which is supposedly shorthand for "true believing Mormon," but it is mostly used as a pejorative with the connotation of a willfully ignorant believer who doesn't question anything and accepts whatever he or she is told (cf. the odious "sheeple" label). I don't use it because most Mormons I know are thoughtful and have their own opinions. I guess I could use it when I deem it appropriate, but that's probably never, because I recognize it's a loaded and insulting term. So is "anti-Mormon."

Just saying.

I find TBM annoying in the same way I find many clichés annoying. But I've never regarded it as "loaded."

I saw the term progmo used on a Facebook post the other day as shorthand for "progressive Mormon" and I've even used it myself a couple of times since then. But if it ever caught on and became cliché, I would probably cease to use it.

[Jeanne]

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, not me.  I think having all perspectives present is a plus even though there "must needs be" opposition when there isn't agreement. 

And trying to get people to agree with me is part of the fun of me posting.

It wouldn't be nearly as much fun if everybody I talked to already agreed with me, with everybody just saying something like "yep" or "yup" or "uh-huh" or not even bothering to keep telling me tbat they already agree with me.

 

I am talking about those of us who have already left the church..those of us online here who are asking questions.

[Jeanne]

13 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, not me.  I think having all perspectives present is a plus even though there "must needs be" opposition when there isn't agreement. 

And trying to get people to agree with me is part of the fun of me posting.

It wouldn't be nearly as much fun if everybody I talked to already agreed with me, with everybody just saying something like "yep" or "yup" or "uh-huh" or not even bothering to keep telling me tbat they already agree with me.

 

From the other sides of the fence..I agree!  And...I have learned so much from other perspectives. 

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I find TBM annoying in the same way I find many clichés annoying. But I've never regarded it as "loaded."

I saw the term progmo used on a Facebook post the other day as shorthand for "progressive Mormon" and I've even used it myself a couple of times since then. But if it ever caught on and became cliché, I would probably cease to use it.

I guess I've been around more people who use TBM as a catch-all insult than you have. I think you hit it on the head, though. Calling someone an anti-Mormon is very much a cliché. It's a loaded term that gets thrown around a lot, so I tend not to use it. I would think it common courtesy not to use it around people who find it offensive, but then apparently such people are just in league with the devil and trying to deceive people into thinking they aren't actually what they are.

You have your standards, and I have mine. I am glad that your signature clarifies what you mean when you call someone an anti-Mormon. It's good to know. 

[Ahab]

Just now, smac97 said:

I'm generally not inclined to define people by their perspective on Mormonism until and unless they exhibit behavior plainly demonstrating and demarcating that perspective.

And you're simply defining that perspective based on your own perspective of any and all things Mormon and whether or not their perspective appears to you to be pro-Mormon or anti-Mormon or Mormon-neutral, I suppose.

Nothing wrong with that as long as you have the correct perspective of any and all things Mormon, so that you can determine what the pro-Mormon or anti-Mormon or Mormon-neutral perspectives really are.

It wouldn't be right to call someone's perspective pro-Mormon when it is really anti-Mormon,, just as it wouldn't be right to call someone's perspective anti-Mormon when it really is Mormon-neutral.

The descriptor just needs to accurately describe the perspective., whatever perspective it is.

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I have a question for the very faithful on this board.  Would you rather that some of us were just not online?

Just those who show up for a day or two and flood the board with nonsense condemnations and page long scripture quotes of how we aren't "Christian".  Those guys need to stay away.  (We haven't had one for a while - aren't we past due for the next one? )

But anyone wanting to discuss doctrine and Church history is more than welcome in my book, even if I disagree with some.

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I am talking about those of us who have already left the church..those of us online here who are asking questions.

When some people say, "You can leave the church, but you can't leave it alone," they usually mean they want you to go away. 

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

When some people say, "You can leave the church, but you can't leave it alone," they usually mean they want you to go away. 

I know...that is why I asked.  But I think that works both ways. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

I know...that is why I asked.  But I think that works both ways. 

Absolutely. It's human nature to not want to be around those who disagree with you, especially on such fundamental matters as faith. 

[smac97]

On 5/27/2016 at 11:45 AM, Ahab said:

And you're simply defining that perspective based on your own perspective of any and all things Mormon and whether or not their perspective appears to you to be pro-Mormon or anti-Mormon or Mormon-neutral, I suppose.

First, I am not sure I understand the above sentence.

Second, whether or not a person is aptly described as "anti-Mormon" is based on their conduct.  I am not a mindreader.  I simply observe what other people are doing and make reasonable conclusions therefrom.

If a person marches in a Pro-Life demonstration, if he writes articles and blog entries describing his opposition to elective abortion, if he helps create videos like this one, then it is entirely reasonable to describe such a person as "anti-abortion."  Particulars and subtleties notwithstanding, such a person is generally actively opposed to abortion, and so is aptly described that way.

Similarly, if a person speaks out against the LDS Church, if he writes articles or blog entries or Facebook posts or discussion board posts in which he criticizes the Church's doctrines and practices and leaders and members, if he actively seeks to oppose the Church's efforts, if he actively seeks to turn people away from or lure them out of the Church, then it is entirely reasonable to describe such a person as "anti-Mormon."  Particulars and subtleties notwithstanding, such a person is generally actively opposed to the LDS Church, and so is aptly described that way.

Quote

Nothing wrong with that as long as you have the correct perspective of any and all things Mormon, so that you can determine what the pro-Mormon or anti-Mormon or Mormon-neutral perspectives really are.

I do not understand this sentence either.  I have many flaws, but in the main I am a reasonable intelligent person.  I can read the writings of, say, Ed Decker and reasonably conclude that he is an "anti-Mormon."  Such a conclusion does not require omniscience.  Just reasonably astute reading comprehension.

Quote

It wouldn't be right to call someone's perspective pro-Mormon when it is really anti-Mormon,, just as it wouldn't be right to call someone's perspective anti-Mormon when it really is Mormon-neutral.

The descriptor just needs to accurately describe the perspective., whatever perspective it is.

And that perspective is, in the main, not particularly hard to discern.

For example, I think most people on this board would rather easily identify me as "pro-Mormon."  I have written several thousand posts on this board.  A survey of them would lead to the cumulative impression that I really like the Church, that I believe it is what it claims to be, that I sustain its leaders, and so on.  Again, no omniscience required.  Just read what I write.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, I am not sure I understand the above sentence.

Second, whether or not a person is aptly described as "anti-Mormon" is based on their conduct.  I am not a mindreader.  I simply observe what other people are doing and make reasonable conclusions therefrom.

If a person marches in a Pro-Life demonstration, if he writes articles and blog entries describing his opposition to elective abortion, if he helps create videos like this one, then it is entirely reasonable to describe such a person as "anti-abortion."  Particulars and subtleties notwithstanding, such a person is generally actively opposed to abortion, and so is aptly described that way.

Similarly, if a person speaks out against the LDS Church, if he writes articles or blog entries or Facebook posts or discussion board posts in which he criticizes the Church's doctrines and practices and leaders and members, if he actively seeks to oppose the Church's efforts, if he actively seeks to turn people away from or lure them out of the Church, then it is entirely reasonable to describe such a person as "anti-Mormon."  Particulars and subtleties notwithstanding, such a person is generally actively opposed to the LDS Church, and so is aptly described that way.

I do not understand this sentence either.  I have many flaws, but in the main I am a reasonable intelligent person.  I can read the writings of, say, Ed Decker and reasonably conclude that he is an "anti-Mormon."  Such a conclusion does not require omniscience.  Just reasonably astute reading comprehension.

And that perspective is, the main, not particularly hard to discern.

For example, I think most Smathis board would rather easily identify me as "pro-Mormon."  I have written several thousand posts on this board.  A survey of them would lead to the cumulative impression that I really like the Church, that I believe it is what it claims to be, that I sustain its leaders, and so on.  Again, no omniscience required.  Just read what I write.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac,knowing what you know about me thus far.  Do you consider me anti-mormon?

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I guess I've been around more people who use TBM as a catch-all insult than you have. I think you hit it on the head, though. Calling someone an anti-Mormon is very much a cliché. It's a loaded term that gets thrown around a lot, so I tend not to use it. I would think it common courtesy not to use it around people who find it offensive, but then apparently such people are just in league with the devil and trying to deceive people into thinking they aren't actually what they are.

You have your standards, and I have mine. I am glad that your signature clarifies what you mean when you call someone an anti-Mormon. It's good to know. 

I don't consider it cliché any more than I would consider any of a host of other anti- constructions cliché:

• antiacademic

• antiacne

• antiadministration

• antiaggression

• antiaging

• anti–AIDS

• antialcohol

• antialcoholism

• antialien

• antiallergenic

• antiallergy

• antianemia

• antiapartheid

• antiaphrodisiac

• anti–Arab

• antiaristocratic

• antiarmor

• antiarthritic

• antiarthritis

• anti–Asian

• antiassimilation

• antiasthma

• antiauthoritarian

• antiauthoritarianism

• antiauthority

• antiauxin

• antibacklash

• antibacterial

• antibias

• antibillboard

• anti–Bolshevik

• antiboss

• antibourgeois

• antiboycott

• anti–British

• antibug

• antibureaucratic

• antiburglar

• antiburglary

• anticaking

• anticapitalism

• anticapitalist

• anticarcinogen

• anticarcinogenic

• anticaries

• anti–Catholic

• anti–Catholicism

• anticellulite

• anticensorship

• anticholesterol

• anti–Christian

• anti–Christianity

• antichurch

• anticigarette

• anticity

• anticlassical

• anticling

• anticlotting

• anticold

• anticollision

• anticolonial

• anticolonialism

• anticolonialist

• anticommercial

• anticommercialism

• anticommunism

• anticommunist

• anticonglomerate

• anticonservation

• anticonservationist

• anticonsumer

• anticonventional

• anticorporate

• anticorrosion

• anticorrosive

• anticorruption

• anticounterfeiting

• anticrack

• anticreative

• anticrime

• anticruelty

• anticult

• anticultural

• antidandruff

• anti–Darwinian

• anti–Darwinism

• antidefamation

• antidepression

• antidesegregation

• antidesertification

• antidesiccant

• antidevelopment

• antidiabetic

• antidiarrheal

• antidilution

• antidiscrimination

• antidogmatic

Yes, I copied and pasted these from a website for the sake of convenience, and I got tired of defining when I got to the d's.

Anti- is simply a prefix that means "opposed to" or "against." If one is opposed to or against something or somebody or somebodies, then one is quite properly characterized as anti- that thing.

As for my sig line, it is a satirical way of pointing out the logical incoherence of one who is truly against Mormonism objecting to being characterized as being against Mormonism.

 

[smac97]

On 5/27/2016 at 0:04 PM, Jeanne said:

Smac,knowing what you know about me thus far.  Do you consider me anti-mormon?

Dunno.  To be honest, I don't know very much about you.

And in any event, I'd rather not personalize this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac