What is an anti-Mormon?

[_Maksutov]

Silly Niadna. We can spot trolls miles away. Did you get upset over some crossboard drama? Get a life. Is it too dull or too desperate in Mopologist land?

With all due respect, Mak, I think that’s utter nonsense.

This is what I’ve seen on boards inhabited by LDS critics for years. Within days, hours, or sometimes minutes, a member of the self appointed troll police cries “troll!!!!!” The other so-called troll experts dogpile on, subjecting the new person to a barrage of hostile posts. Within a short period of time, the new poster does what any person with a modicum or self respect would do — conclude that the board is inhabited by assholes and go elsewhere. The troll hunter brigade then celebrates their amazing troll spotting skills with joyous back slapping and high fiving. They drive the new person away, and they interpret that as confirmation that the person was a “troll.”

Now, Niadna may turn out to be a troll. But I see no evidence of trolling yet. She does display some behaviors that I think are common for LDS folks when they converse with critics. But that doesn’t make her a troll, unless you define troll as “Mormon”.

How about I get to know her directly without somebody thinking they have to be chaperone? With all due respect, of course? I'm talking to her/him in the thread. I'm sure you have better things to do.

[_Res Ipsa]

We do have a tool for private conversations, right?

If troll piling is your way of “getting to know” someone, by all means proceed. You must be a riot at parties.

My criticism is aimed at the notion that folks here are equipped with super trolldar.

[_Shulem]

Listen, baby -- you're advertising yourself as one who has faith & hope.

Care to show me the post in which I did any such thing?

Every. Single. One.

Can. You. Read?

[_Maksutov]

We do have a tool for private conversations, right?

If troll piling is your way of “getting to know” someone, by all means proceed. You must be a riot at parties.

My criticism is aimed at the notion that folks here are equipped with super trolldar.

You must be a riot anytime somebody doesn't want a menage a trois.

I think that I get to decide when to have private conversations. Did you get promoted since I was here last?

If you think I'm interested in having my posts micromanaged, take a look at my avatar and think about it. Moderation with a light hand is much better, wouldn't you agree?

[_grindael]

I take it very seriously when someone claims that I said something I did not. Hence, this addendum:

grindael:

If you are really so savvy about anti Mormons as you seem to portray here, I think you would be able to answer your own questions. Or are they really just rhetorical? If you really want to know why it bugs some to be called anti Mormons, well, it's because the term has been used as an epithet for just about anyone who was critical of the Mormon faith since the time of Joseph Smith. He did it himself.

Your answer:

Actually, the term wasn't FIRST used by Joseph. It was FIRST used by those who hated Mormons. Really.They were rather proud of being anti (against) Mormons.

Where in my comment did I say Joseph used it FIRST? I did not. I said he used the term himself. If you are all about facts and evidence, you probably need to brush up on your comprehension skills or you will continue to make these kinds of errors.

And of course, it wasn't the critics who were using it as an epithet, it was the Mormons. Joseph once said,

"On the annexation of Texas, some object. The anti-Mormons are good fellows. I say it in anticipation they will repent."

So according to Smith they were evil and needed to "repent" for objecting to the annexation of Texas and called "anti-Mormons".

Joseph also had some fun in the Book of Mormon by naming someone "Anti-Nephi-Lehi". Then there was the famous "anti-christ" Korihor. So, actually Joseph was using the label "anti" very early in his career.

The Anti-Nephi-Lehites were Lamanites who decided to be peaceful and even though they joined with the Nephites, they did not use their weapons against the Lamanites.

All "anti-Mormons" should take a lesson from this and stop using violence, (rock throwing, etc.) or threats of it against anyone. And it's kind of funny that Mormons get labeled as polygamists (still) and every other thing by many, so I think that it should be a lesson for Mormons not to broadly label those who do not believe as they do.

But I doubt that will ever change, the Mormons have too much invested in the term "anti-Mormon".

[_Lemmie]

You must be a riot anytime somebody doesn't want a menage a trois.

I think that I get to decide when to have private conversations. Did you get promoted since I was here last?

If you think I'm interested in having my posts micromanaged, take a look at my avatar and think about it. Moderation with a light hand is much better, wouldn't you agree?

George would approve.

[Guest]

And yes, there were those in the 19th century who used the term "Anti-Mormon", there was an Anti-Mormon Almanac published in 1842. But at that time the word "anti" was applied to any who were against something, especially in politics. There were "anti Republicans", etc. Since the Mormons were heavily involved in politics, it's not surprising. Google's N-Gram Viewer has the term being used as early as 1837, but I'm not sure in what context, because I can't find any books or published articles that used it. So it is entirely possible that it did not originate with critics, though it is likely it did. But context is everything.

[_Res Ipsa]

We do have a tool for private conversations, right?

If troll piling is your way of “getting to know” someone, by all means proceed. You must be a riot at parties.

My criticism is aimed at the notion that folks here are equipped with super trolldar.

You must be a riot anytime somebody doesn't want a menage a trois.

I think that I get to decide when to have private conversations. Did you get promoted since I was here last?

If you think I'm interested in having my posts micromanaged, take a look at my avatar and think about it. Moderation with a light hand is much better, wouldn't you agree?

Mak, if I gave you the impression that I was acting as a moderator, I apologize for that. I think your posts are within the rules and it never occurred to me to exercise moderator powers. My understanding is that all members are free to post in threads and to criticize, and was exercising those privileges of all members.

[_Res Ipsa]

Nandia, so you were a teacher. When a student engaged in inappropriate behavior in class, did you label her a “troublemaker” and treat her as a troublemaker going forward it did you address the behavior?

Indeed...I addressed the behavior (though I was actually pretty lousy at classroom management). And part of addressing that behavior is classifying the BEHAVIOR.

Which, as I have mentioned more than once, is what I do when classifying 'critic' 'anti' and 'extreme anti'. I have, more than once, stated rather clearly that I can't judge the thoughts and motives of the writers, only that which is written.

But your labels don’t purport to classify behavior — they purport to classify people. You introduced them as s system to classify people — in fact as a comprehensive taxonomy of everyone in the world who is not a Mormon. If someone resorts to insults, why label the person rather than address the insult.

[_Shulem]

But I doubt that will ever change, the Mormons have too much invested in the term "anti-Mormon".

You got it.

The Mormons play it to the hilt and wallow about in their pitiful self persecution and complain how everyone else (THE WHOLE WORLD) is critical of Mormonism to some degree.

It's the Mormons that are anti-world. They condemn the things of the world that everyone else finds just fine. Mormons are constantly pointing their fingers and accusing the whole world for what they do -- calling everyone sinners and so forth. They are a judgmental persecuting people that deserve every level of criticism.

Nasty rotten Mormons! (I'm glad they shot Joseph Smith -- he deserved what he got)