What is an anti-Mormon?

[Guest]

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

It's emotional, not rational.

I think this is an excellent observation, and it should be pointed out that the emotional response and tribal behavior/groupthink it elicits is used by all. For example, it seems to be an label given all too freely by conservative members trying to preserve the status quo, to members who are actively and vocally trying to make changes.

[_Shulem]

A question to be had for Mormons who are critical of Mormon critics:

QUESTON: What is an anti-anti-Mormon?

[_Niadna]

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.

Oh, stick around. I'll leave. If you want to call that cowardice on my part, or an inability to 'take the heat,' feel free.

I think I would have enjoyed being here, if it were not obvious that I have (see? italics to emphasize, not caps) blundered into an "escape from Mormonism" support group.

Not one of you have addressed the actual point of what I was attempting to say; that "anti" is about words and deeds, not feelings or motivations. Being an 'anti' rather than a 'critic' is about how one objects to something, not whether one does, or even what one objects to.

Not one of you has addressed that; you have been far too busy insulting my character, my intelligence and even my internet grammar.

Well, guys, I didn't like hazing when I was in high school and I'm too old to put up with it now.

[Guest]

Not one of you has addressed that; you have been far too busy insulting my character, my intelligence and even my internet grammar.

Well, guys, I didn't like hazing when I was in high school and I'm too old to put up with it now.

You have received multiple replies on point to what you just said. Additionally many of us have neither insulted your character, intelligence nor corrected your grammar. This reply here, though, is quite indicative of the goal you were perhaps seeking from the beginning, which seemed to be the ability to lump a group of distinctive and disparate individuals into a single whole that could be dismissed as an "escape from Mormonsim group".

For what it is worth, you received multiple replies from people who were never LDS. Johannes, PhysicsGuy, Little Nipper, Jersey Girl and Quasimoto, just to name a few, who clearly are not part of a group trying to escape from Mormonism, since they never have been Mormons. Had you bothered to spend the necessary time, you might of figured that out.

[_Res Ipsa]

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.

Oh, stick around. I'll leave. If you want to call that cowardice on my part, or an inability to 'take the heat,' feel free.

I think I would have enjoyed being here, if it were not obvious that I have (see? italics to emphasize, not caps) blundered into an "escape from Mormonism" support group.

Not one of you have addressed the actual point of what I was attempting to say; that "anti" is about words and deeds, not feelings or motivations. Being an 'anti' rather than a 'critic' is about how one objects to something, not whether one does, or even what one objects to.

Not one of you has addressed that; you have been far too busy insulting my character, my intelligence and even my internet grammar.

Well, guys, I didn't like hazing when I was in high school and I'm too old to put up with it now.

I think folks have tried to address the point. IMHO, you haven't really engaged with them. The problem, the way I see it, is that you are placing the responsibility for your labels on those you are labeling instead of taking the responsibility for labeling them on yourself. In your view, the labeling is okay because people deserve the labels you give them. Your solution is, if people object to the label, they should change their behavior. But you haven't explained why people should change their behavior in response to your made-up labeling system. It comes off as pretty judgmental -- which is something that, in my opinion, many Mormons just don't see in themselves.

Of course, stay or go is up to you. I hope you stay and get to know the folks here a little better. If you go, it's a big win for confirmation bias on both ends, and that's a shame.

Regardless, I wish you all the best in your battle with cancer. Keep winning.

[_Lemmie]

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.

None of that happened in this thread.

I think I would have enjoyed being here, if it were not obvious that I have (see? italics to emphasize, not caps) blundered into an "escape from Mormonism" support group.

Well that's about the least accurate description of this board I have ever read.

Not one of you have addressed the actual point of what I was attempting to say; that "anti" is about words and deeds, not feelings or motivations. Being an 'anti' rather than a 'critic' is about how one objects to something, not whether one does, or even what one objects to.

Not one of you has addressed that; you have been far too busy insulting my character, my intelligence and even my internet grammar.

What?! None of that happened either, and plenty of people addressed the OP. Weird.

Well, guys, I didn't like hazing when I was in high school and I'm too old to put up with it now.

This reply here, though, is quite indicative of the goal you were perhaps seeking from the beginning, which seemed to be the ability to lump a group of distinctive and disparate individuals into a single whole that could be dismissed as an "escape from Mormonism group".

I think you're onto something, here, fence sitter!

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.

As usual, I enjoyed your posts tremendously and learned interesting new things. Thanks grindael.

[_Shulem]

I escaped from Mormonism!

Sounds like movie material.

[_Fence Sitter]

Regardless, I wish you all the best in your battle with cancer. Keep winning.

Well said. and seconded.

Battles about what a word does or does not mean pale by comparison to this one.

[_grindael]

Ah shucks, I come and go.

Being an 'anti' rather than a 'critic' is about how one objects to something, not whether one does, or even what one objects to.

All that is, is rhetoric. That's all you have. How do you know what anonymous commenters (for the most part) do? I mean, if you were having this conversation in person with a bunch of people you wished to educate, then perhaps you could judge them on what they do. But here, it is an exercise in futility.

I mean, really, if I were to say that because of the conversations I had here, I went out and bitch-slapped half a dozen Mormons, would you even believe me? People can say anything. But since I'm not hiding behind anonymity, I stand by what I write here and in other places.

How do we know if you are even sincere? Really, we don't. But that's the beauty of this place, anyone can say anything they want under the cloak of anonymity. For some, it's absolutely necessary. For others, it's simply a licence to provoke and cut loose on whatever they like.

Not one of you have addressed the actual point of what I was attempting to say; that "anti" is about words and deeds, not feelings or motivations.

Are you sure about that? So those that publish what FAIRMORMON and others have called "anti-Mormon literature", there is simply no motivation behind it? Those people have no feelings? Do you even think about what you write? Again, what deeds do you know these "anti-Mormons" you want to label have committed?

What if two people get married in the temple and one of the families of the bride or groom are not members and they are told by the Ward Bishop that they can't attend. What if afterwards, they get so angry about it, they go to the church and slash the bishop's tires. Are they anti-Mormons or just pissed off people, and do you just throw out the motivation for them doing so? Why would you not want to know motivation in conjunction with "deeds"? Wouldn't that help you to better understand why some people speak and act the way they do?

I mean, really, this labeling thing is just so silly. Sorry if that annoys you. And really, (again), when you purposefully provoke people, you might not get the response you were looking for. Or was that your plan all along. Again, it comes down to sincerity. And how is anyone to judge that if you throw a hissy fit and do what you claim you really didn't want to do, broadbrush a whole group of people. ("escape from Mormonism support group")

Are you aware of how many never Mo's post here? Probably not. Consider this a lesson learned. But I doubt you will ever see it that way, you are too busy feeling sorry for yourself.

[_grindael]

And why would you come here, and go into this whole "anti-Mormon" shtick? Were you planning on calling some here "anti-Mormons" and wanted them to know why?