What is an anti-Mormon?

[_moksha]

I grew up Catholic in an area where Mormons are/were common, and we practiced indifference, even staying home when there were major Mormon-related events. Let them do their thing-- as we do our thing.

Doesn't sound like a very ecumenical spirit, but Mormons themselves have been extremely unecumenical.

I remember being appalled when I read of a minister refusing to be on the same podium if a Mormon was also allowed to offer a prayer on National Prayer Day - can't remember if that biased minister may have been Robert Jeffress, Trump's pretend personal pastor, or not.

I think religious people should respect one another and not be bearers of intolerance. You can have falafel, funeral potatoes, Friday fish, fried chicken, matzo balls, and vindaloo all on the same plate. That great buffet in the sky serves them all, with an extra helping of pie given for early birds.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Good is in the eye of the giver, and evil is in the eye of the receiver.

Anti-Mormon is a subjective measurement.

I myself find it hard to find anyone who I would consider anti Mormon.

I am sure you would find similar results among Mormons.

I guess it boils down to how we make each Mormon feel, as well as how they feel about their own belief and activity level.

for what it's worth, I love it when a believing member and/or defender of Mormonism labels me an anti Mormon

[_Niadna]

What if you fit into more than one category? Is that allowed under your system or does it cause a galactic schism? For instance, I know Mormons who are also critics (why did the chapel shudder when I typed that?). What category do the 10 million or so Mormons who don’t attend any longer fit into? (The shuddering is getting worse and now the lights are flickering. Perhaps I shouldn’t have overridden the Church internet security to get access to this site...).

I can only classify the actions of those who write and behave. I can't judge motives or internal angst.

To ME, being a critic is good. Being a critic of ANYTHING is good. It means that one is using one's brain and actually thinking, and raising questions.

I have no problem at all with critics. I love 'em, whether they disagree with me on one thing, or many things. The idea behind criticism (honest criticism, anyway) is that one is willing to be respectful...even if that means 'respectfully disagreeing." It also means that it is POSSIBLE to convince someone else, or that they can convince me.

I don't meet many critics on internet debate forums.

But when the writings involved are repetitive and unchanging except to get more insulting; when said writings indicate that the writer is completely uninterested in LISTENING, but only in achieving his own goal of destroying the opposition; when he is quite willing to use unethical methods to do so; when his writings consist mostly of ad hominems; when he is willing to disrupt the meetings and events of his opponents with disrespectful and downright insulting rhetoric...that's an anti.

When he crosses the line into physical threats or admits to using unethical means to destroy the opposition, then he's on the extreme end of the spectrum.

..........and it is a spectrum, not a set of boxes. I'm just telling you where I put the dividing lines.

[_Res Ipsa]

What if you fit into more than one category? Is that allowed under your system or does it cause a galactic schism? For instance, I know Mormons who are also critics (why did the chapel shudder when I typed that?). What category do the 10 million or so Mormons who don’t attend any longer fit into? (The shuddering is getting worse and now the lights are flickering. Perhaps I shouldn’t have overridden the Church internet security to get access to this site...).

I can only classify the actions of those who write and behave. I can't judge motives or internal angst.

To ME, being a critic is good. Being a critic of ANYTHING is good. It means that one is using one's brain and actually thinking, and raising questions.

I have no problem at all with critics. I love 'em, whether they disagree with me on one thing, or many things. The idea behind criticism (honest criticism, anyway) is that one is willing to be respectful...even if that means 'respectfully disagreeing." It also means that it is POSSIBLE to convince someone else, or that they can convince me.

I don't meet many critics on internet debate forums.

But when the writings involved are repetitive and unchanging except to get more insulting; when said writings indicate that the writer is completely uninterested in LISTENING, but only in achieving his own goal of destroying the opposition; when he is quite willing to use unethical methods to do so; when his writings consist mostly of ad hominems; when he is willing to disrupt the meetings and events of his opponents with disrespectful and downright insulting rhetoric...that's an anti.

When he crosses the line into physical threats or admits to using unethical means to destroy the opposition, then he's on the extreme end of the spectrum.

..........and it is a spectrum, not a set of boxes. I'm just telling you where I put the dividing lines.

I don’t understand your conflation of honesty with civility. Would you mind unpacking that a little?

[_Niadna]

Good is in the eye of the giver, and evil is in the eye of the receiver.

Anti-Mormon is a subjective measurement.

not....really.

When one measures by actions rather than motives, it's not subjective.

I myself find it hard to find anyone who I would consider anti Mormon.

Funny. I don't have any problems at all finding 'em.

I mean, when someone writes that I (and every other Mormon) is a Satanist who murders infants in occultic rituals in the Temples, or that we are greedy, power-hungry and selfish...oh, just think of an insult and I've been called that...yeah. That person is an anti.

Critics deal with the doctrines and policies. They don't think of the worst insulting name in their repertoire and decide that all Mormons are that.

I am sure you would find similar results among Mormons.

Y'know, you are quite right. I don't find many anti-Mormons among Mormons.

Is that what you meant to say????

I guess it boils down to how we make each Mormon feel, as well as how they feel about their own belief and activity level.

for what it's worth, I love it when a believing member and/or defender of Mormonism labels me an anti Mormon

So. ARE you? Where would you put yourself on that spectrum?

[_Niadna]

I don’t understand your conflation of honesty with civility. Would you mind unpacking that a little?

Where did I conflate those two ideas?

I don't see it.

However, one can be honest....without being uncivil. In fact, I have a feeling that when 'honesty' is presented in an uncivil and insulting manner, the point is usually the insult, not the 'honesty.'

[_huckelberry]

I don’t understand your conflation of honesty with civility. Would you mind unpacking that a little?

Where did I conflate those two ideas?

I don't see it.

However, one can be honest....without being uncivil. In fact, I have a feeling that when 'honesty' is presented in an uncivil and insulting manner, the point is usually the insult, not the 'honesty.'

Niadna, I can certainly respect the general hope you have for what discussion and debate should be or should be hoped to be. There is always the problems that different viewpoints on things people actually care about can create clashes and can spill over into what may appear as disrespect. To consider reality that can spill over in frustration into actual disrespect at times. It is well to occasionally repeat the hope.

The subject of Mormonism has a number of subjects that can be seen differently by different people. Well meaning people may see anothers actual view as perversely negative.Did Brigham Young order, suggest or was he not connected to Mountain Meadows? This board is willing to discuss (has) this and will not block statements about it pleasant or not. Ones persons reasonable will not always be another persons reasonable.

I suspect people are wary of the distinction critic and antimormon because the boundary is vague and the nonbeliever can cross from one side to the other. May find it necessary some times.

I think we are all aware of the extreme antimormons. Though anybody can post here this board does not attract that sort of person. I cannot say never.

There have been times things said about Christianity have offended me. I think it is best to realize that allowing people to say what they really think is going to result in offense sometimes. It is best to look past the offense to hear the persons view. Sometimes it is best to allow some disagreements to just be. Trying to understand people and the life we share is not a matter of winners and losers.

[_Themis]

Ones persons reasonable will not always be another persons reasonable.

Some things are reasonable while others are not. Think age of the earth.

[_huckelberry]

Ones persons reasonable will not always be another persons reasonable.

Some things are reasonable while others are not. Think age of the earth.

Themis, I was speaking of the persons perception of what is reasonable. You and I will think the earth is very old and with the piles of clear evidence it is not reasonable to think otherwise. Nipper believes it entirely reasonable to think it is a few thousand years old. That I include that observation in my understanding of Nipper does not mean I am thinking young earth creationism itself is reasonable.

[_Niadna]

Niadna, I can certainly respect the general hope you have for what discussion and debate should be or should be hoped to be. There is always the problems that different viewpoints on things people actually care about can create clashes and can spill over into what may appear as disrespect. To consider reality that can spill over in frustration into actual disrespect at times. It is well to occasionally repeat the hope.

The subject of Mormonism has a number of subjects that can be seen differently by different people. Well meaning people may see anothers actual view as perversely negative.Did Brigham Young order, suggest or was he not connected to Mountain Meadows? This board is willing to discuss (has) this and will not block statements about it pleasant or not. Ones persons reasonable will not always be another persons reasonable.

I suspect people are wary of the distinction critic and antimormon because the boundary is vague and the nonbeliever can cross from one side to the other. May find it necessary some times.

I think we are all aware of the extreme antimormons. Though anybody can post here this board does not attract that sort of person. I cannot say never.

There have been times things said about Christianity have offended me. I think it is best to realize that allowing people to say what they really think is going to result in offense sometimes. It is best to look past the offense to hear the persons view. Sometimes it is best to allow some disagreements to just be. Trying to understand people and the life we share is not a matter of winners and losers.

I was not suggesting censorship or any sort of moderation change. That would be rather presumptuous of me, to say the very least. For crying out loud...they let ME in!

As well, I think (not in the OP, but later) that I mentioned that it's the acts I classify, because I can't really judge motives? You are quite right; someone can post 'like a critic" one minute....and the next post can be decidedly anti the next.

However, I do think that the line between 'critic,' 'anti' and 'extreme anti' isn't all THAT vague. I THINK....that if one considers the dividing line to be ad hominem attacks between 'critic' and 'anti,' one is safe. As well, I believe that the dividing line between 'anti' and 'extreme anti' would be the threat of, approval of, or participation in physical opposition that causes, or might cause, harm.

These dividing lines aren't vague, at all, and can certainly be identified easily enough.

Here's an example from another forum that might illustrate this: (not a specific example, but an ongoing meme)

Critic: Joseph Smith had many wives, including two fourteen year olds. I think that polygamy is wrong, not condoned by God, and illustrates his unfitness to call himself a prophet. (as you can see, the classification 'critic' can include some very strong opinions...;) )

Anti: Joseph Smith was a pedophile and a sex pervert, and Satan probably told him to get as many women pregnant as he could. He was ALSO a traitor.

Extreme anti: He deserved what he got when the mob, disgusted by his going after young girls, shot him. I wish I had been one of them...and if a Mormon talks to MY daughter, I'll shoot him right where it would do the most good (this last was a very real threat by a very real person, by the way...not exaggerating a bit here).

As I mentioned, I don't think the 'lines' between the groups are all that broad or vague.