Scott Lloyd Posted June 12, 2017 Author Posted June 12, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: I did. I suppose you would say an "anti-mormon" disagrees and wants to proselytize the disagreement? Again, anti- means opposition to. One who acts in whatever capacity with the intent to harm, diminish, defame or destroy The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is by definition anti-Mormon. One need not complicate or quibble over what in actuality is a quite plain definition. Edited June 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
longview Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: The key to understanding this is that in his polarized view of the world one half of the binary is the "hard left," which are democrats (? yes, the other major political party), socialists, and communists (an irrational lumping), and the second half of the binary is the traditional values crowd, where he lumps conservatives and religious believers, i.e. the good guys. In other words, he set up a false dichotomy which allows him to ignore his own polarization and indeed even his own false dichotomy. Sounds pretty disjointed. I have pointed out the there is a critical small middle third that can sway elections between the two polar sides. I have also pointed out that the traditional values crowd are not as united and coordinated like the hard left. You say I have "irrationally" lumped Communists with the Democrats? You probably have heard that Obama grew up in a family of communist enthusiasts (both his parents plus the grandparents). His mentors include Frank Marshall Davis, Paul Robeson, Henry Wallace, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, etc. His administration was chock full of communists such as Van Jones, Carol Ruth Browner, Ann Dunn, Mark Lloyd, Ezekiel Emanuel (very scary beliefs), John Holdren, Cathy Zoi, Kevin Jennings, Cass Sunstein, etc. Sure sounds like Democrats (and many Republicans) marching in locksteps with Communists. 10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Quite so. Does not seem like you have your thinking cap securely snug on your noggin.
Jeanne Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: Again, anti- means opposition to. One who acts in whatever capacity with the intent to harm, diminish, defame or destroy The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is by definition anti-Mormon. One need not complicate or quibble over what in actuality is a quite plain definition. Then how do you explain me Scott? I love my family. I love my heritage. I speak on discussion boards freely..but in all other areas of my life ...it is Shut Up.
Pete Ahlstrom Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 31 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: For those who are interested in the theology or history though that obviously won't work. You can't dismiss them and have to deal with the arguments. I think this hits at the heart of why some want to use the term "anti-mormon." These persons do not want others to deal with the alternative arguments. Yet they will be the first to chide the shocked questioner for not already knowing the issues that they themselves have already discounted. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 12, 2017 Author Posted June 12, 2017 9 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Then how do you explain me Scott? I love my family. I love my heritage. I speak on discussion boards freely..but in all other areas of my life ...it is Shut Up. I was asked for a definition of anti-Mormon. I responded. Why do I have to explain you? Do you regard yourself as opposing Mormonism?
Pete Ahlstrom Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Again, anti- means opposition to. One who acts in whatever capacity with the intent to harm, diminish, defame or destroy The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is by definition anti-Mormon. One need not complicate or quibble over what in actuality is a quite plain definition. Yes, it is a plain definition, but as applied, it is often used to stop discussion of troubling issues. In that sense, "anti-mormon" is used by "anti-intellectuals" to squelch the free flow of ideas.
Pete Ahlstrom Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I was asked for a definition of anti-Mormon. I responded. Why do I have to explain you? Do you regard yourself as opposing Mormonism? Choose ye this day Jeanne. Which label fits you best? Edited June 12, 2017 by Pete Ahlstrom
MiserereNobis Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 (edited) 28 minutes ago, longview said: You say I have "irrationally" lumped Communists with the Democrats? You probably have heard that Obama grew up in a family of communist enthusiasts (both his parents plus the grandparents). His mentors include Frank Marshall Davis, Paul Robeson, Henry Wallace, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, etc. His administration was chock full of communists such as Van Jones, Carol Ruth Browner, Ann Dunn, Mark Lloyd, Ezekiel Emanuel (very scary beliefs), John Holdren, Cathy Zoi, Kevin Jennings, Cass Sunstein, etc. Sure sounds like Democrats (and many Republicans) marching in locksteps with Communists. Boy, I didn't realize the Red Scare was back... ETA: I blame it all on Valentinus. First, he will take over this board, next the world. Edited June 12, 2017 by MiserereNobis 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 12, 2017 Author Posted June 12, 2017 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: Yes, it is a plain definition, but as applied, it is often used to stop discussion of troubling issues. In that sense, "anti-mormon" is used by "anti-intellectuals" to squelch the free flow of ideas. If the term is applied correctly (according to the definition I gave above), one has no reasonable standing to object to it. If I am opposed, say, to pornography on broad principle, what reasonable standing do I have to object to someone identifying me as anti-porn as I make my arguments against the production, dissemination and consumption of pornography? Edited June 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Jeanne Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I was asked for a definition of anti-Mormon. I responded. Why do I have to explain you? Do you regard yourself as opposing Mormonism? No...I do sometimes..I am who I am...but who I am loves everyone regardless of the religious affiliations. I interpreted your definition to include me. You don't have to explain to me though..don't reply.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 12, 2017 Author Posted June 12, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: Choose ye this day Jeanne. Which label fits you best? Ye is a plural pronoun. Unless you regard Jeanne as more than one person, you should have said "Choose you ...." Edited June 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Jeanne Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 11 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: Choose ye this day Jeanne. Which label fits you best? I choose love and to all. But if that is anti..so be it. My religion is kindness.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 12, 2017 Author Posted June 12, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Jeanne said: No...I do sometimes..I am who I am...but who I am loves everyone regardless of the religious affiliations. I interpreted your definition to include me. You don't have to explain to me though..don't reply. I gave a definition of anti-Mormon that I think is quite clear. I hope it doesn't apply to you. By the way, one can profess to love Mormons as people and still be anti-Mormon if one opposes their faith, religion, theology, etc. Anti-Mormon more often applies to opposition to Mormonism than it does to hatred of Mormons as people, although it can apply to both. Edited June 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
cinepro Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Again, anti- means opposition to. One who acts in whatever capacity with the intent to harm, diminish, defame or destroy The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is by definition anti-Mormon. One need not complicate or quibble over what in actuality is a quite plain definition. Theoretically speaking, if I had a friend who was a member of the Church, and that friend didn't know a lot about Church history and made comments to the effect that if they found out that Joseph Smith had been sealed to a 14-year-old girl they would leave the Church, would I be an "anti-Mormon" if I shared the Church essay on polygamy with them and it resulted in them leaving the Church?
Jeanne Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Ye is a plural pronoun. Unless you regard Jeane as more than one person, you should have said "Choose you ...." He can say it anyway he wants to..I understand. Crap Scott..what is with you?
Jeanne Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: I gave a definition of anti-Mormon that i think is quite clear. I hope it doesn't apply to you. I don't think it matters. You can define me anyway you want and you will. God knows my heart.
Jeanne Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 I want to apologize to Scott for a previous post where i was a stinker. Forgive me Scott.
Pete Ahlstrom Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If the term is applied correctly (according to the definition I gave above), one has no reasonable standing to object to it. How would it be applied correctly? Could you give some examples?
Scott Lloyd Posted June 12, 2017 Author Posted June 12, 2017 13 minutes ago, cinepro said: Theoretically speaking, if I had a friend who was a member of the Church, and that friend didn't know a lot about Church history and made comments to the effect that if they found out that Joseph Smith had been sealed to a 14-year-old girl they would leave the Church, would I be an "anti-Mormon" if I shared the Church essay on polygamy with them and it resulted in them leaving the Church? Would your intent have been that the friend leave the Church? If not, I think you can answer that for yourself. 1
Pete Ahlstrom Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 13 minutes ago, cinepro said: Theoretically speaking, if I had a friend who was a member of the Church, and that friend didn't know a lot about Church history and made comments to the effect that if they found out that Joseph Smith had been sealed to a 14-year-old girl they would leave the Church, would I be an "anti-Mormon" if I shared the Church essay on polygamy with them and it resulted in them leaving the Church? I think some would label you as "anti-mormon" because you are supposedly putting the church in an unflattering light, aiding disaffection, even though what you say is true.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 12, 2017 Author Posted June 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: How would it be applied correctly? Could you give some examples? The definition I gave is "one who acts in whatever capacity with the intent to harm, diminish, defame or destroy The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." I don't understand why you need examples to grasp such a straightforward definition. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted June 12, 2017 Author Posted June 12, 2017 10 minutes ago, Jeanne said: I want to apologize to Scott for a previous post where i was a stinker. Forgive me Scott. No worries.
Pete Ahlstrom Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The definition I gave is "one who acts in whatever capacity with the intent to harm, diminish, defame or destroy The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." I don't understand why you need examples to grasp such a straightforward definition. Because time and time again, it is used as a mere ad hominem in an improper attempt to dissuade people from reading alternative views. Sure, the definition is seemingly straightforward, but applying is not so much. It has an intent component and intent is very hard to discover. So, I think it is too easy to lump mere disagreement into the "anti-mormon" camp. In cinepro's example, you respond with a question of intent. But how would you know intent in that case?
Robert F. Smith Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 52 minutes ago, longview said: Sounds pretty disjointed. I have pointed out the there is a critical small middle third that can sway elections between the two polar sides. I have also pointed out that the traditional values crowd are not as united and coordinated like the hard left. You say I have "irrationally" lumped Communists with the Democrats? You probably have heard that Obama grew up in a family of communist enthusiasts (both his parents plus the grandparents). His mentors include Frank Marshall Davis, Paul Robeson, Henry Wallace, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, etc. His administration was chock full of communists such as Van Jones, Carol Ruth Browner, Ann Dunn, Mark Lloyd, Ezekiel Emanuel (very scary beliefs), John Holdren, Cathy Zoi, Kevin Jennings, Cass Sunstein, etc. Sure sounds like Democrats (and many Republicans) marching in locksteps with Communists. Does not seem like you have your thinking cap securely snug on your noggin. Maybe not, but what I do think is that both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were the only real communists worthy of the name, which you would know had you studied the subject adequately: Kenneth Rexroth, Communalism: From Its Origins to the Twentieth Century (1974). Dean L. May, Building the City of God: Community and Cooperation Among the Mormons (1976/1992). Leonard Arrington, "Early Mormon Communitarianism," Western Humanities Review, 7 (Aut 1953):341-369. Milovan Djilas, The New Class (1957). You should also know that early Christianity was communist (Acts 2:42-47, 4:32-35, IV Nephi 1:3). You are so busy marching in lockstep with the state capitalism of Lenin and Mao, that you have no idea what that could even mean. B. Pixner, in Charlesworth & Johns, eds., Hillel and Jesus (1997), 201-202. S. E. Johnson, “The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline and the Jerusalem Church of Acts,” in K. Stendahl, ed., The Scrolls and the New Testament (1957), 129-142, 273-275. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 12, 2017 Author Posted June 12, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: Because time and time again, it is used as a mere ad hominem in an improper attempt to dissuade people from reading alternative views. I don't see anyone doing that here. If some are doing it, either here or elsewhere, you should take it up with them. Would you have people cease to use the term altogether, even when it can be applied accurately? That strikes me as political correctness, which I fervently detest. Some people are obviously anti-Mormon and ought to be identified as such. Quote Sure, the definition is seemingly straightforward, but applying is not so much. It has an intent component and intent is very hard to discover. So, I think it is too easy to lump mere disagreement into the "anti-mormon" camp. In cinepro's example, you respond with a question of intent. But how would you know intent in that case? Whether or not the intent is difficult to ascertain (and I submit that in a great many instances, it is quite obvious) the matter of intent is in theory a key component in the definition. Would you deny that it is? Intent is a legal criterion in determining criminal culpability. It often makes all the difference in determining whether an incident is an accident or a crime. This is so, whether or not the intent is difficult to ascertain. It is such an important criterion that trials are held to determine it. Likewise it is a reasonable consideration in determining anti-Mormonism. Edited June 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Recommended Posts