What is an anti-Mormon?

[_Niadna]

Bull. Being an anti isn't about what you don't like.

It's about how you tell us you don't like it.

You will forgive me if I decline to acknowledge your claim to define what being an Anti is or is not. That is questing begging the topic at hand is it not?

Y'all are coming after ME with all guns blazing because you claim that I'm calling everybody but TBM's "Anti's' Some of you are very offended because you claim that I am calling everybody an anti.

I'm not trying to define 'anti' for anybody but me. The dividing line, FOR ME, between critic and anti, and between anti and 'extreme anti' has nothing whatsoever to do with beliefs, or experiences, or knowledge, or intent.

It's all about actions. Words. Three people can have the same opinion about us. Perhaps all three really don't like the idea of missionaries knocking upon their doors.

The critic will have arguments about it and may even state his in strong language, expressing his own disgruntlement at having his Saturday (or Sunday, whichever) interrupted, and he'll talk about how useless an exercise knocking on doors is, etc.

The anti will call the missionaries names. He'll call Mormons in general names. He may call those missionaries 'Satanists,' or 'cultists' and then go off and use ad hominems against every Mormon target he can think of. He'll accuse the missionaries, perhaps, of underhanded motives. He'll pile on the insults fast and deep.

The extreme anti will threaten to sic his dogs on the next missionary to show up, or better still, brag about how he (or his neighbor) already has. He'll rage about how Mormons don't have the right to go anywhere where people might not like them, and if they do, it is their fault if they are attacked. They will get so exercised that they MIGHT pick up a rock and throw it.

I don't write the dictionaries. I can't define 'anti' for you. However...

Since I'm the one USING the word, it would be a really good idea for me to know what *I* mean when I use it, and I THOUGHT, silly me, that if I let others know what I meant when I used it, Y'all would know that I don't automatically think that everybody who disagrees with me is an 'anti.'

When I call someone that, it's not because of any automatic assumption. It is because that person has acted in a manner that makes him an anti, in my view.

Perhaps I don't get to define 'anti' for YOU...but you don't get to define it for me, either. --and I'm not the only person who feels the way I do about this issue.

[_grindael]

Context IS important.

One thing you have shown us here, is that you have no idea how to contextualize anything.

[_Niadna]

Do you even know why the Missourians burned down the printing press of the Evening and Morning Star and tarred Edward Partridge. Have you tried to understand what may have driven them to do that (as wrong as it was)?

Yes I do.

However, it is fairly obvious that you don't.

[_Niadna]

Niadna, what do you think of the idea about petitioning President Trump to pardon Joseph Smith, Jean D'Arc, and Lucretia Borgia?

The problem here is that Joseph Smith wasn't convicted of anything, (except perhaps a misdemeanor early on and people are still arguing about that) so why would he require a pardon?

Were you thinking of pardoning him for being murdered? Somehow I don't think that works.

As to the other two, I don't think that, as President, he has the power to pardon someone who wasn't a citizen of the US even if they had been convicted of anything.

Other than those small objections? Trump can pardon anybody he pleases. He's the president. He can do that.

[_Niadna]

Context IS important.

One thing you have shown us here, is that you have no idea how to contextualize anything.

....and this personal attack advances the conversation, how, precisely?

[_grindael]

....and this personal attack advances the conversation, how, precisely?

It's not a personal attack, it is an observation based on the last 20 pages of your comments. Nice try, but wrong again.

[_grindael]

However, it is fairly obvious that you don't.

Too bad none here agree with you.

[_grindael]

OMG! A personal attack. I guess I'm just an "extreme anti-Mormon". I'll let all my Mormon friends and fellow historians know that an anonymous internet troll has outed me!

[_Lemmie]

Context IS important.

One thing you have shown us here, is that you have no idea how to contextualize anything.

....and this personal attack advances the conversation, how, precisely?

If you feel it is a personal attack, then hit the report button. As grindael pointed out already, it is not, but you are certainly within your right to ask a mod to look at it.

It's difficult to understand why you would suddenly label this as a personal attack when you have already made many similar posts with equally strong observations. Are you getting advice? If it helps, there are several lengthy conversations recently you could look at, where mods have discussed what is and is not considered a personal attack, as the rule relates to various forum locations.

[_grindael]

And the President does have the power to pardon non-citizens of the U.S. But in those two cases since they didn't commit any crimes against the U.S., there would be nothing for him to pardon. You do understand sarcasm and the use of exaggeration (like parody), don't you? Perhaps not.