What is an anti-Mormon?

[_Res Ipsa]

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.'

I was thinking of stuff like this:

"critics: those who are interested in Mormonism and have honest disagreements with doctrine and/or policies, and who like to discuss, even argue, with Mormons about those things in a civil manner."

"honest critic, who sees something s/he honestly has a problem with and respectfully addresses that, "

"The idea behind criticism (honest criticism, anyway) is that one is willing to be respectful..."

It looks to me, especially in that last quote, like you are restricting "honest" criticism to civility.

Sure, one can be an honest critic and be civil. But why should incivility disqualify one from being an "honest" critic?

[_Niadna]

I was thinking of stuff like this:

"critics: those who are interested in Mormonism and have honest disagreements with doctrine and/or policies, and who like to discuss, even argue, with Mormons about those things in a civil manner."

"honest critic, who sees something s/he honestly has a problem with and respectfully addresses that, "

"The idea behind criticism (honest criticism, anyway) is that one is willing to be respectful..."

It looks to me, especially in that last quote, like you are restricting "honest" criticism to civility.

Sure, one can be an honest critic and be civil. But why should incivility disqualify one from being an "honest" critic?

(shrug) one can be an honest anti...though to be honest (erk) I don't think I've ever seen one. In fact, being DIShonest is one of the things that makes one an anti.

never mind.

Honest critics do not NEED insults to make their points. Indeed, retreating to ad hominems is usually an indication that one has lost the argument and can't come up with a logical, civil, response.

....and by 'civil,' I don't mean "friendly and kind." I mean, refraining from ad hominems and being willing to support one's claims with evidence. One can 'civilly' accuse people of all sorts of horrific things.

[_Res Ipsa]

There are two types of people in the world: those who put people into categories and those who ...

Oh, nevermind.

Seriously, what do you get out of creating these categories and then assigning folks to them? Do you choose how to interact with them based on their category or as individuals?

yep.

Or rather...sometimes.

What that really was about was trying to differentiate the honest critic, who sees something s/he honestly has a problem with and respectfully addresses that, from the folks who use insulting language, from the folks who do physically obstructive and perhaps even harmful, things.

Loose categories, sure, but the thing is, I'm tired of the Mormons who think that every critic is as 'anti-Mormon' as the folks who shot Sardius Smith, and I'm just as tired of the folks who think that the Haun's Mill thing was justified because some Mormon gave a speech saying that Mormons would defend themselves if they were attacked.

There's a pretty wide variety of opinions out there, and I just don't think that "Mormon/Anti-Mormon" covers it.

I totally get your frustration with folks who divide the world up into Mormons and anti-mormons. But is the right solution just to create a couple more labels to slap on folks? In the first place, it seems kind of odd to me to classify 7 billion people in the world based on their stance toward a minority religion. I mean, I'm an avid boardgamer. I likely spend more time board gaming than you spend in church. But it wouldn't occur to me to categorize people based on their stance toward boardgaming.

But the real problem with this type of taxonomic exercise, in my opinion, is that the labels don't really tell you anything important about the person. Instead, one slaps a label on a person and then reacts to the label instead of the person. For example, under your taxonomy, our poster Shulem would be an anti-mormon. He has, what I believe are honest and deeply felt objections to Mormonism, but he doesn't express them in a respectful manner. If you slap the anti-mormon label on him, you are simply going to miss who he is and why he feels and expresses himself the way he does.

The point is, the labels obfuscate rather than reveal. If you and I are having a discussion and I speak disrespectfully, you can address that disrespect without slapping a label on me. Frankly, that's what many LDS folks do when presented with any criticism of the Church: they label it as "anti-mormon" and use that as an excuse to disregard the substance of what the person says.

Your mileage may vary, but my experience is that genuine and productive discussion requires one to abandon labels and to try one's best to listen and understand what the other person is saying.

[_candygal]

Resigned in 2008. Ex Mormon, yes....anti??? No! I have literally had to grit my teeth before Mormons so as not to hurt them...and yet with great love and empathy..I want them to see the light at the end of the tunnel for which they struggle. These people...my family..my extended family and ancestors are still my people...who were fooled by an imaginative teenager and a scheme that offered promises and delivered sins of ommission.

[_Stem]

Anti what?

What belief system are they attacking? What religion are they misrepresenting, insulting, etc.,?

Because I do NOT see Mormons in forums devoted to the discussion of, say, Anglicanism or Presbyterianism or Jehovah's Witnesses or Catholicism spending their days attempting to 'debunk the cult."

To me, 'anti' (and 'critic,' for that matter) only applies to those who actively pursue the target belief system. In the case of the internet and debate forums, 'antis' (and that's 'anti' pretty much anything) go to the forums dedicated to the discussion of the belief system they are 'anti,' arm up and start shooting. Metaphorically, of course.

So what would the defenders BE against? "Anti'ism?" So someone in a Catholicism forum who is attacked by an anti-Catholic, and who responds in kind, is now 'anti-anti-Catholic?"

So a Mormon in here who gets annoyed at having his beliefs, leaders and history insulted, and who responds...is s/he now an 'anti-anti-Mormon?" How many 'anti's' can we apply here...someone who claims that a Mormon is being mean when s/he responds sharply to an attack...is HE an 'anti-anti-anti-Mormon?

No, you'll have to tell me what the Mormons in a forum dedicated to the discussion of Mormonism IS 'anti,' when they are defending against attacks.

..........Now me, I'll admit that I verge on the line of being anti-Calvinism, since my opinion of that particular belief is, er, very low. I TRY to be polite even there, though. Don't always make it, and I do get testy when others start getting really insulting (I've been thrown off of CARM a LOT), but I do try.

And you won't find me in any Calvinist debate forum going after them in there. I only have something to say when they come into a Mormonism forum and start spouting off.

I guess I was going even more ridiculous--anti-their own religion. I admit this labeling scale you've created seems useless to me.

[_Res Ipsa]

I was thinking of stuff like this:

"critics: those who are interested in Mormonism and have honest disagreements with doctrine and/or policies, and who like to discuss, even argue, with Mormons about those things in a civil manner."

"honest critic, who sees something s/he honestly has a problem with and respectfully addresses that, "

"The idea behind criticism (honest criticism, anyway) is that one is willing to be respectful..."

It looks to me, especially in that last quote, like you are restricting "honest" criticism to civility.

Sure, one can be an honest critic and be civil. But why should incivility disqualify one from being an "honest" critic?

(shrug) one can be an honest anti...though to be honest (erk) I don't think I've ever seen one. In fact, being DIShonest is one of the things that makes one an anti.

never mind.

Honest critics do not NEED insults to make their points. Indeed, retreating to ad hominems is usually an indication that one has lost the argument and can't come up with a logical, civil, response.

....and by 'civil,' I don't mean "friendly and kind." I mean, refraining from ad hominems and being willing to support one's claims with evidence. One can 'civilly' accuse people of all sorts of horrific things.

Sure, insulting someone is always a choice. But the fact that I say something to you that you find insulting doesn't mean that I don't have solid, honest arguments. This may not be true of you specifically, but I've seen a pattern among faithful LDS of using what they perceive as incivility as an excuse to reject perfectly good arguments. The distinction between an insult and an honest but blunt statement is pretty thin and highly subjective.

Similarly, I've seen a pattern of LDS defenders using "ad hominem" as an excuse to avoid grappling with an actual argument. And the accusation of "no evidence" is too often used when the real issue is whether a pattern of facts should be considered as evidence and, if so, how much weight should that evidence be given.

So, I guess one thing that concerns me is that your taxonomy is tied in with what I would describe as typical thought-stopping cliches commonly used by LDS defenders to dismiss folks critical of Mormonism. It will be interesting to see how you apply your taxonomy to folks here.

[_Fence Sitter]

Frankly, that's what many LDS folks do when presented with any criticism of the Church: they label it as "anti-mormon" and use that as an excuse to disregard the substance of what the person says.

Your mileage may vary, but my experience is that genuine and productive discussion requires one to abandon labels and to try one's best to listen and understand what the other person is saying.

This, especially the bolded part.

In many of the conversations I have had in RL with friends and family regarding Mormonism, this is a goto response. I think the Church itself bears a lot of responsibility for this by encouraging a culture of perceived persecution and shifting blame to the members for loss of faith. I recall having a conversation with my father some years back in which I was excitedly telling him about the new Joseph Smith papers project. I started out with a brief explanation of it as being a site where one could go to actually read the original versions of thousands and thousands of documents written by the founding members like Joseph Smith and others. The defense mechanisms are so ingrained for some including my father that his first question was "Is this an Anti site?"

It looks like the categories the OP is putting together are self fulfilling, as in, only dishonest criticism as defined by him/her qualify one as an anti Mormon. A classic "No True Scotsman" fallacy. So, for example, without even knowing someone's status as a Mormon, Niadna could classify and reject someone as an Anti if he/she thought that it didn't meet Niadna's own subjective criteria of honesty.

Stem asks a good question above about Mormons themselves using evidence and being "Anti's", which Niadna missed by asking what belief system they are attacking. Well the answer is they are defending their own version of the Mormon belief system which may or may not agree with Niadna's own version. Claiming there is only one is begging the question. So in Niadna's version of what constituted a critic and or an Anti Mormon, he/she gets to decide what version is being attached and whether or not the attacker is genuine or being dishonest.

[_Res Ipsa]

Frankly, that's what many LDS folks do when presented with any criticism of the Church: they label it as "anti-mormon" and use that as an excuse to disregard the substance of what the person says.

Your mileage may vary, but my experience is that genuine and productive discussion requires one to abandon labels and to try one's best to listen and understand what the other person is saying.

This, especially the bolded part.

In many of the conversations I have had in RL with friends and family regarding Mormonism, this is a goto response. I think the Church itself bears a lot of responsibility for this by encouraging a culture of perceived persecution and shifting blame to the members for loss of faith. I recall having a conversation with my father some years back in which I was excitedly telling him about the new Joseph Smith papers project. I started out with a brief explanation of it as being a site where one could go to actually read the original versions of thousands and thousands of documents written by the founding members like Joseph Smith and others. The defense mechanisms are so ingrained for some including my father that his first question was "Is this an Anti site?"

It looks like the categories the opening post is putting together are self fulfilling, as in, only dishonest criticism as defined by him/her qualify one as an anti Mormon. A classic "No True Scotsman" fallacy. So, for example, without even knowing someone's status as a Mormon, Niadna could classify and reject someone as an Anti if he/she thought that it didn't meet Niadna's own subjective criteria of honesty.

Stem asks a good question above about Mormons themselves using evidence and being "Anti's", which Niadna missed by asking what belief system they are attacking. Well the answer is they are defending their own version of the Mormon belief system which may or may not agree with Niadna's own version. Claiming there is only one is begging the question. So in Niadna's version of what constituted a critic and or an Anti Mormon, he/she gets to decide what version is being attached and whether or not the attacker is genuine or being dishonest.

I think those are good observations. I think I should make clear that what I'm talking about isn't some particular failing of Niadna's or of LDS defenders: it's how brains work. It's just easier to spot it in someone else than in oneself. Cognitive bias is a bear.

[_karl61]

I think anti-mormons have no rules. They don't need to connect the dots: they don't need to do any research about a subject. They just throw mud. You just need to go over and read some of the posts, or responses to posts on reddit exmormon to see what an anti-mormon is.

Critics on the other hand have legitimate concerns about what is going on in the LDS church. They believe warts and all history should have always been presented to the members. They are concerned about how young men have been, or are treated in the church who step outside the box but still obey the rules. Critics have concerns that abuse of tithing funds may occur when there is no financial transparency etc, etc, etc.

I've been on this board for over a decade and I really can't say that I have seen a post that is anti-mormon. I have never seen a post here that rises to the level seen on reddit. But when a TBM posts here and defends a white washed history, non transparency, and the failure to validate a young person who obeys the rules, but thinks different, then there are going to be responses asking them why they think that way or are they just echoing the thoughts of another person.

[_Physics Guy]

Living Mormons today deserve respect, just like everyone else. I don't see an obligation to treat Joseph Smith respectfully just because Mormons revere him, however. He used his status as prophet to get many women to have sex with him, some of whom were married to other men, some of whom were under-age. The evidence for this is published on the LDS web site.

Smith was not simply living by the different standards of his different time and place from ours. The prophet Muhammad might be able to play the "presentism" card; he lived in seventh-century CE Arabia. Joseph Smith lived in 19th-century New England. He lied to conceal what he did, and when the people of his time found out about it, they were outraged.