I'm Sorry, But I Really Love This Board

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours 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."

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.

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

The term Anti-Mormon is a loaded word. It's very purpose is to marginalise and put descriptors on its target. If you can't see that then so be it. The term is  inflammatory and specifically designed stereotype. I've said my peace, you can do as you please...let your conscience be your guide

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I can relate to that. I have often felt like I can't quite move forward until I understand where I was and why. Still working on it. My biggest problem is that feelings still get hurt on both sides in interactions with my LDS family, no matter how hard I try to stay away from hot-button topics. Most of the time, I just shut up and listen while they talk about the church and my poor choices in life. Maybe I come here because I know I'm not going to hurt feelings if I speak up here. I don't know.

You hit right where it hurts.  Sometimes family looks at me like I am from a foreign country..sometimes that is where I would like to go.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

You hit right where it hurts.  Sometimes family looks at me like I am from a foreign country..sometimes that is where I would like to go.

When I was home last month, my dad had me alone in the car for 45 minutes, and he really lit into me. I should have just shut up, but I tried to have a civil conversation, which was a mistake. I ended up talking about the church's policy about children of gay couples. He accused me of making it up. That really hurt. I don't think my father has accused me of lying ever, but there it was. I just stopped talking. Not one of the happier moments of my life. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No, it doesn't necessarily imply that, but it often connotes it. I'm a bit surprised that a writer is unconcerned about connotation and tone, especially when ostensibly trying to engage in persuasive discourse.

I am concerned about connotation and tone -- but not to the point that I will jettison a reasonably serviceable term just because some object to it or intransigently insist on attaching a wrong or unintended meaning to it. That's the very thing that I detest about political correctness.

It occurs to me that some who object to the term anti-Mormon do it on such grounds as this: "I hate Mormonism but I love the Mormon people; therefore I am not anti-Mormon." Well, here's a newsflash: Your hatred of Mormonism makes you anti-Mormon, regardless of how you feel about the people.

(Incidentally, in the above sentence, I meant "your" in a general sense, not you personally. I know of your propensity to personalize things such as this.)

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The term Anti-Mormon is a loaded word. It's very purpose is to marginalise and put descriptors on its target. If you can't see that then so be it. The term is  inflammatory and specifically designed stereotype. I've said my peace, you can do as you please...let your conscience be your guide

I think most people recognize it's a loaded word, which tells me that they probably intended the negative connotations when they use it. But it just means "against Mormonism," right?

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

My observation has been that message boards that A) are about Mormonism, and B) not moderated or insufficiently moderated tend to C) result in few if any faithful LDS members as participants on the board, and D) tend to have a very crass, course, vulgar level of discourse.  Spend a bit of time on the exmormon subreddits, exmormon.org, and other venues and I think you'll observe this for yourself.

That does not mean that Mormons are incapable of such unpleasantries.  Of course they are.

Why?  What is offensive about it?

They undoubtedly, indisputably exist.

Some of them even retain membership in the Church.

And yes, some of them are on this board.

Well, that's . . . odd.  You concede that there are "pro-Mormons," but you bristle at the notion of "anti-Mormons."  Why?

I disagree.  I think "anti-Mormon" should be used to describe people who actively oppose the LDS Church and/or its doctrines / leaders / members.

It's not a likeable word.  It's not a likeable thing. (Yes, I'm cribbing from A Man For All Seasons.)

"Anti-Mormon" is a perfectly legitimate descriptor.

Thanks,

-Smac

If a critic called a Mormon Anti Truth or Anti Evidence Based Knowledge you may bristle as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

56 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think most people recognize it's a loaded word, which tells me that they probably intended the negative connotations when they use it. But it just means "against Mormonism," right?

I would say that in almost all cases that is what it means.

Thus, one doesn't get a pass by saying, "I hate Mormonism but love Mormons; therefore I'm not anti-Mormon." Your (used in a general sense, not you personally) hatred for Mormonism makes you anti-Mormon by definition.

 

Edited May 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

When I was home last month, my dad had me alone in the car for 45 minutes, and he really lit into me. I should have just shut up, but I tried to have a civil conversation, which was a mistake. I ended up talking about the church's policy about children of gay couples. He accused me of making it up. That really hurt. I don't think my father has accused me of lying ever, but there it was. I just stopped talking. Not one of the happier moments of my life. 

Been there.  Now my dad is way too old to put forth the effort.  I always knew I was in hot water (even as an adult in my early 50's) when he would call me out into the garage to talk. He laughed at me so hard when I told him that Joseph used a seer stone and a hat..and it went on and on..unlike you, I didn't have the sense to stay quiet.  He then called in my brothers and told them what I said..laughter...I am a liar and kind of a dumb lady...now I let it roll off my back.  I could no more desire to take away his testimony for anything at this time in his life.  This is where we rely on our "self" to keep from getting depressed.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

When I was home last month, my dad had me alone in the car for 45 minutes, and he really lit into me. I should have just shut up, but I tried to have a civil conversation, which was a mistake. I ended up talking about the church's policy about children of gay couples. He accused me of making it up. That really hurt. I don't think my father has accused me of lying ever, but there it was. I just stopped talking. Not one of the happier moments of my life. 

I've noticed that even when starting out with a civil conversation, you tend to escalate conflict if you can't get prompt agreement from the other party.

I don't know your dad, and I have no way of ascertaining his level of knowledge or awareness, but I wonder if, instead of denying the existence of the policy itself, he was reacting to your spin on the policy when he accused you of "making it all up."

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've noticed that even when starting out with a civil conversation, you tend to escalate conflict if you can't get prompt agreement from the other party.

I don't know your dad, and I have no way of ascertaining his level of knowledge or awareness, but I wonder if, instead of denying the existence of the policy itself, he was reacting to your spin on the policy when he accused you of "making it all up."

I didn't spin it. He didn't believe the church would deny baptism or blessing to the children of gay couples. I even explained it applied to those with primary custody until they were 18. I didn't mention the disavowal part because by then I had stopped talking. I expect people on this board to assume I spin or even lie. I didn't expect it from my dad. Still hurts. 

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I didn't spin it. He didn't believe the church would deny baptism or blessing to the children of gay couples. I even explained it applied to those with primary custody until they were 18. I didn't mention the disavowal part because by then I had stopped talking. I expect people on this board to assume I spin or even lie. I didn't expect it from my dad. Still hurts. 

I believe a lot of members of the older age are simply unaware..especially at that time.  In fact, a lot of members didn't know about this for quite awhile except for those who had access to the handbook and correspondence from a SP.  You did the right thing by being quiet about it. 

Edited May 27, 2016 by Jeanne

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If a critic called a Mormon Anti Truth or Anti Evidence Based Knowledge you may bristle as well.

Non-sequitur.

[smac97]

On 5/27/2016 at 1:33 PM, Johnnie Cake said:

The term Anti-Mormon is a loaded word.

Not necessarily.  "Anti-Semite" could be considered "a loaded word," too.  But that's because anti-semitism is an innately ugly, unpleasant thing.  

Look at all the tapdancing you are doing in this thread.  You are fine with "Pro-Mormon," presumably because it's objectively definable, but then you bristle at its antonym.  

You merely assert, but do not explain or demonstrate, that "anti-Mormon" is "offensive" and an "ad hominem" (huh?) and a "dishonest tool" (huh? again), that it should be replaced with some sort of touchy-feely nicety like "Alternative Point of View" because . . . you say so, I guess.

You suggest - again without explanation - that "anti-Mormon" can only be used to describe "anyone who purposely lies or knowingly distorts LDS doctrines for the purpose of deceiving others from belief in Mormonism," as though opposition to the Church per se requires dishonesty (a position, oddly enough, you seem to be taking, and which I am rejecting).

You ignore my explanation for my usage of the term and (falsely) characterize my usage as "a descriptor against those who engage in a honest discussion."

You weirdly suggest that my recognition that "anti-Mormons" exist amounts to me declaring "moral high ground" over you (huh? cubed).

"Anti-Mormonism" exists.  It is a thing.  There are people with "pro-Mormon" perspectives, and people with "anti-Mormon" perspectives (and there are those who are indifferent/ambivalent about us).  You recognize the former, but just can't bring yourself to admit to the reality of the latter.  I don't understand that.

Quote

It's very purpose is to marginalise and put descriptors on its target.

Nope.  Its very purpose is to quantify a person's perspective vis-à-vis the LDS Church.

Some people can, I suppose, use it as a thought-terminating cliché.  I don't.  I have my faults, but failing to think about my faith or criticisms leveled against it is not one of them.

Quote

If you can't see that then so be it. The term is  inflammatory and specifically designed stereotype.

The term describes an unpleasant proclivity.  I would not like to be called an anti-Catholic or an anti-Jew or an anti-Muslim or an anti-Hindu.  I think religious beliefs form a very important part of many people's lives.  There are few circumstances I can contemplate wherein I would actively oppose a religious group.  Nevertheless, it is absurd to suggest that such perspectives don't exist.  Or that they should be spared normative descriptors in favor of touchy-feely niceties because, well, some who harbor such repellant sentiments just don't want that spade to be called a spade.

So with respect, I disagree.  The term is eminently useful and reasonable.  

Quote

I've said my peace, you can do as you please...let your conscience be your guide

My "conscience" isn't really a part of the equation.  People exist who are actively opposed to the LDS Church and/or its doctrines / practices / leaders / members.  And that such people can and should be described as "anti-Mormon."  There is no moral code breached or conundrum encountered when I choose to use this apt portion of the English language.

None.  At all.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 27, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

On 5/27/2016 at 1:43 PM, Teancum said:

If a critic called a Mormon Anti Truth or Anti Evidence Based Knowledge you may bristle as well.

Yes, because such characterizations would be false.

In contrast, "anti-Mormon" to me is the antonym of "pro-Mormon" (with the caveat that it should reserved for people who are actively and demonstrably opposed to the LDS Church and/or its doctrines / practices / leaders / members).

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, because such characterizations would be false.

In contrast, "anti-Mormon" to me is the antonym of "pro-Mormon" (with the caveat that it should reserved for people who are actively and demonstrably opposed to the LDS Church and/or its doctrines / practices / leaders / members).

Thanks,

-Smac

I am grateful that you at least acknowledge the negative connotations of the word. 

[Ahab]

Is everybody remembering that this is an "I'm sorry, but I really love this board" thread? 

Just checking.

How did we get to talking about anti-Mormons, I wonder.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

Is everybody remembering that this is an "I'm sorry, but I really love this board" thread? 

Just checking.

How did we get to talking about anti-Mormons, I wonder.

Probably my bad...I mentioned how I loved this board as a ex-mormon and then asked if having us unbelievers bothered anybody.  Sorry if I contributed.  At least it didn't jusst stop everything like a lot of my posts.

[smac97]

On 5/27/2016 at 2:15 PM, jkwilliams said:

I am grateful that you at least acknowledge the negative connotations of the word. 

Well, sure.  But that has more to do with the thing being described, rather than the descriptor itself.

For example, a person described as "anti-abortion" would probably not find that word to have a negative connotation, because the thing being described (opposition to abortion) can be viewed favorably, even honorably.  In contrast, a person described as "anti-Semitic" probably would find the word as having a negative connotation, because . . . well, hostility or prejudice against Jews is an innately negative thing (in my view, anyway).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Non-sequitur.

Why?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Why?

See Smac's response, which I agree with.

[Teancum]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, because such characterizations would be false.

In contrast, "anti-Mormon" to me is the antonym of "pro-Mormon" (with the caveat that it should reserved for people who are actively and demonstrably opposed to the LDS Church and/or its doctrines / practices / leaders / members).

Thanks,

-Smac

Whether such characterization is false or true is in the eye of the beholder.  However there is no question that Mormonism makes many empirical claims which cannot be validated by empirical data and some that many would argue have been proven false by empirical data.  Faith and personal metaphysical experiences for the truth claims of the LDS Church are a hallmark approach and often will trump evidence or lack thereof.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, sure.  But that has more to do with the thing being described, rather than the descriptor itself.

For example, a person described as "anti-abortion" would probably not find that word to have a negative connotation, because the thing being described (opposition to abortion) can be viewed favorably, even honorably.  In contrast, a person described as "anti-Semitic" probably would find the word as having a negative connotation, because . . . well, hostility or prejudice against Jews is an innately negative thing (in my view, anyway).

Thanks,

-Smac

Presumably, if they did indeed hate Jews (or Judaism), they would have no justifiable objection to being called anti-Semitic.

And even if they did object, they would still, in fact, be anti-Semitic.

It's the same with anti-Mormonism. If people don't want the descriptor, they shouldn't behave in a way that makes the descriptor accurate.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

See Smac's response, which I agree with.

Smac's response does not meet the definition of Non-sequitur.  Nor did yours.

 

 

[Ahab]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I am grateful that you at least acknowledge the negative connotations of the word. 

All of the negative connotations are associated with the idea that someone is actively and demonstrably against the LDS church and/or any of its doctrines / practices / leaders / members, though.   Right?

Because it's not a likeable idea that people are actually and actively and demonstrably against it/ us.

So it's because you love us and our doctrines / practices / leaders that the term anti-Mormon has negative connotations to you otherwise you'd be an anti-Mormon, too.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Smac's response does not meet the definition of Non-sequitur.  Nor did yours.

 

 

It's non-sequitur because you were endeavoring to draw a comparision between false characterizations and a true one. Thus it does meet the definition of non-sequitur.