What is an anti-Mormon?

[_Fence Sitter]

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.

First off, you started a thread to discuss what you meant by certain terms, so it is a little confusing when you complain about people disagreeing with you. My guess is you are enjoying the thread, as am I, and the back and forth that is going on. Maybe we can do away with the "guns blazing" type of comments since this is a discussion board and people are here to, well, argue and discuss stuff. As I mention before, there are other boards that operate like a F&T meeting where you can find those who will agree with you if that is what you are looking for. (NOTE: I AM NOT ASKING OR EVEN INVITING YOU TO LEAVE IN ANY WAY. )

Secondly, I totally agree that a discussion about how you use a term is appropriate and in fact I thought it might be a good idea if I offered my own view of what how the term Anti-Mormonism has changed over time, to which you replied "Bull". You were not really furthering any conversation with that response, so I tried to remind you that the thread was about discussing what Anti meant and why your "Bull" response seemed inappropriate.

[_Fence Sitter]

...and narrowing down the conversation without bringing in examples that are pertinent is called contextomy.

While your point is a good one when discussing things that are far apart in time or type, like, oh, pointing out that it might be possible to excuse the twin tower bombings because of the crusades, talking about one press destruction in the context of another one that happened a decade previously in an ongoing atmosphere of antagonism is not. THAT would be 'context.'

When discussing whether Joseph Smith' establishing of martial law was a treasonous offense, for instance, bringing up the Revolutionary or Civil war may be problematic. However, if one compares the actions in Nauvoo to the motives and actions of martial law being declared in San Francisco, Coer d'Alene, the Texas oilfields in 1931, Phoenix City, and most recently, Ferguson, Missouri, are not. Context IS important.

Here is where someone might point out that someone else used a "Moses " reference as contextual response to an inquiry asking about other people who did things that Joseph Smith did. Someone might, but I certainly wouldn't.

But let's say you have a point that the the depredations over the years against the Mormons have to be included when talking about Nauvoo and failure to do so is a sign of hypocrisy by your interlocutors. Does that same standard apply to you in this conversation for say events like MMM and the extermination of the Utah Valley native American populations by the same people that suffered persecutions in Nauvoo and Clay County? Are you being a hypocrite for not expressing your views about those atrocities committed by the Mormons?

[_grindael]

The problem here is that Joseph Smith wasn't convicted of anything...

Why yes, he did commit a crime that he was convicted of (he plead guilty). Ever hear of William Bagby? Joseph assaulted him. He did the same to Calvin Stoddard in Kirtland:

In 1835 Joseph assaulted his Brother in Law, Calvin Stoddard and was taken to Court. From the Painesville Telegraph:

Kirtland, June 22, 1835.

To the Editor of the Painesville Telegraph:

SIR: -- In a late number of your paper the fact was noticed of my being bound over to the Court of Common Pleas, to keep the peace, for an assault upon the person of my brother-in-law; Since my honorable acquittal before said court, last week, there being no evidence to prove the same, I believe you will do me the justice to make the last as public as the former, and oblige.
Your ob't serv't,
JOSEPH SMITH, Jr.

In compliance with the above polite invitation, we give below the evidence introduced, and the decision of the Court, on the trial of the Prophet, last week. It may be proper to state, in limine, that at the examination had before the justice, in this place, by whom the Prophet was held to bonds, Stoddard, the individual upon whose person the assault was committed, could not be obtained as a witness, as he had, it appears, been suddenly induced to leave the State. He returned a few days since when his presence at court was secured much against his will. Burgess, the witness last examined, whose testimony most favored the accused, was not brought forward at the justice's examination, although present in the place at the time -- a circumstance that induced many to suppose his evidence was manufactured for the occasion. The witnesses introduced were, Stoddard, a brother-in-law, Walmart. Smith, a brother and "apostle," Mrs. Smith, the mother, and Burgess, a faithful follower, of the Prophet accused.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS .
Saturday, June 20.

Joseph Smith, Jr., was put upon his trial on a charge of Assault and Battery committed upon the person of Mr. Stoddard. By consent of the parties, the case was submitted to the Court without Jury.

Stoddard examined -- States that Smith had irritated him in a controversy about water -- he had affirmed that there was water in a certain lot, which Smith denied -- as Smith passed towards his house, he followed him, and said, "I don't fear you, or no other man" -- Smith then came up and struck him in the forehead with his flat hand -- the blow knocked him down, when Smith repeated the blow four or five times, very hard -- made him blind -- that Smith afterwards came to him and asked his forgiveness -- was satisfied -- had forgiven him -- would forgive any man who would injure him and ask his forgiveness.

Cross ex. -- Had a cane -- did not attempt to strike him, or threaten.

William Smith examined -- Saw Stoddard come along cursing and swearing -- Joseph went out -- Stoddard said he would whip him, and drew his cane upon Joseph -- Joseph struck him once or twice.

Cross ex. -- Joseph stopped in the yard -- they were close together when he saw them -- cautioned Joseph to stop, that he had done enough.

Mr[s]. Smith, the Prophet's mother -- Saw some of the affrey -- was upstairs -- heard Stoddard talking loud -- called Joseph "a d---d false prophet, and a d---d one thing [and] another." -- saw Joseph slap him -- did not hear Stoddard say he would flog him -- did not see Stoddard attempt to strike him.

Burgess -- Says Stoddard struck at Smith first, and raised his cane in a threatening attitude when down.

The Court, after summing up the testimony, said that as the injured party was satisfied, there would be no cause for further prosecution; that the assault might perhaps be justified on the principle of self-defense. The accused was then acquitted,

It appears that he hit Calvin so hard that it temporarily blinded him. Calvin died on November 19th 1836. He was only 35 years old. Did he die as a result of those injuries? Perhaps.

[_Niadna]

Why yes, he did commit a crime that he was convicted of (he plead guilty). Ever hear of William Bagby? Joseph assaulted him. He did the same to Calvin Stoddard in Kirtland:

In 1835 Joseph assaulted his Brother in Law, Calvin Stoddard and was taken to Court. From the Painesville Telegraph:

Kirtland, June 22, 1835.

To the Editor of the Painesville Telegraph:

SIR: -- In a late number of your paper the fact was noticed of my being bound over to the Court of Common Pleas, to keep the peace, for an assault upon the person of my brother-in-law; Since my honorable acquittal before said court, last week, there being no evidence to prove the same, I believe you will do me the justice to make the last as public as the former, and oblige.
Your ob't serv't,
JOSEPH SMITH, Jr.

In compliance with the above polite invitation, we give below the evidence introduced, and the decision of the Court, on the trial of the Prophet, last week. It may be proper to state, in limine, that at the examination had before the justice, in this place, by whom the Prophet was held to bonds, Stoddard, the individual upon whose person the assault was committed, could not be obtained as a witness, as he had, it appears, been suddenly induced to leave the State. He returned a few days since when his presence at court was secured much against his will. Burgess, the witness last examined, whose testimony most favored the accused, was not brought forward at the justice's examination, although present in the place at the time -- a circumstance that induced many to suppose his evidence was manufactured for the occasion. The witnesses introduced were, Stoddard, a brother-in-law, Wal*Mart. Smith, a brother and "apostle," Mrs. Smith, the mother, and Burgess, a faithful follower, of the Prophet accused.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS .
Saturday, June 20.

Joseph Smith, Jr., was put upon his trial on a charge of Assault and Battery committed upon the person of Mr. Stoddard. By consent of the parties, the case was submitted to the Court without Jury.

Stoddard examined -- States that Smith had irritated him in a controversy about water -- he had affirmed that there was water in a certain lot, which Smith denied -- as Smith passed towards his house, he followed him, and said, "I don't fear you, or no other man" -- Smith then came up and struck him in the forehead with his flat hand -- the blow knocked him down, when Smith repeated the blow four or five times, very hard -- made him blind -- that Smith afterwards came to him and asked his forgiveness -- was satisfied -- had forgiven him -- would forgive any man who would injure him and ask his forgiveness.

Cross ex. -- Had a cane -- did not attempt to strike him, or threaten.

William Smith examined -- Saw Stoddard come along cursing and swearing -- Joseph went out -- Stoddard said he would whip him, and drew his cane upon Joseph -- Joseph struck him once or twice.

Cross ex. -- Joseph stopped in the yard -- they were close together when he saw them -- cautioned Joseph to stop, that he had done enough.

Mr[s]. Smith, the Prophet's mother -- Saw some of the affrey -- was upstairs -- heard Stoddard talking loud -- called Joseph "a d---d false prophet, and a d---d one thing [and] another." -- saw Joseph slap him -- did not hear Stoddard say he would flog him -- did not see Stoddard attempt to strike him.

Burgess -- Says Stoddard struck at Smith first, and raised his cane in a threatening attitude when down.

The Court, after summing up the testimony, said that as the injured party was satisfied, there would be no cause for further prosecution; that the assault might perhaps be justified on the principle of self-defense. The accused was then acquitted,

It appears that he hit Calvin so hard that it temporarily blinded him. Calvin died on November 19th 1836. He was only 35 years old. Did he die as a result of those injuries? Perhaps.

Did you actually read your own cut/n paste, here?

What part of "acquitted" is a problem?

What part of the testimony, which seems to put Joseph in, quite possibly, a light of 'self defense," missed your attention? I mean, really; even Stoddard admitted to following Joseph and being belligerent.

Two of the witnesses said that Stoddard struck first. (shrug)

Whatever, the point is, he certainly wasn't convicted of this one, was he?

[_Lemmie]

Did you actually read your own cut/n paste, here?

What part of "acquitted" is a problem?

What part of the testimony, which seems to put Joseph in, quite possibly, a light of 'self defense," missed your attention? I mean, really; even Stoddard admitted to following Joseph and being belligerent.

Two of the witnesses said that Stoddard struck first. (shrug)

Whatever, the point is, he certainly wasn't convicted of this one, was he?

That violates your own previous objection:

...and narrowing down the conversation without bringing in examples that are pertinent is called contextomy.

You even quoted the context that you ignored in your post:

Why yes, he did commit a crime that he was convicted of (he plead guilty). Ever hear of William Bagby? Joseph assaulted him. He did the same to Calvin Stoddard in Kirtland:

[_grindael]

This selective blindness thing is really fascinating, isn't it, Lemmie? I never said he was convicted in the case of Calvin Stoddard, only that he also assaulted him. (Joseph had a penchant for doing that to people).

It is really mind boggling that you could not pick up the context of what I wrote and refuse to even comprehend what it said either.

All puffed up with vanity
We see what we want to see
To the beautiful and the wise
The mirror always lies ~Rush

[_grindael]

Thank you though for absolutely showing the accuracy of my observation:

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

[_grindael]

I'm not a fan of shooting ducks in a barrel, so I will again take my leave, and probably won't be back unless you once again endeavor to butcher Mormon history and I feel the need to correct you.

With my departure I leave this gift:

My advice at this point is if you want to have legitimate discussions with people about the facts and evidence of Mormon History and Theology, do your homework and concentrate on that instead of futile labeling exercises.

It will only help you and you might learn something if you apply yourself.

[Guest]

(The actual evidence, not FAIRMORMON BS).

[_Meadowchik]

"Anti-Mormon" has no clear objective meaning except as a rhetorical device used to enhance tribal behavior and groupthink.

It's emotional, not rational.