Anti-Mormon?

[_Alfredo]

I understood your question and already answered.

Let me be a little clearer: Some one behaves as an anti-mormon for the same reason anyone does anything... they believe something "good" will happen.

You can use your imagination to continue with this thought. It's very possible that someone may behave in ways characterized as discrimination, persecution, hostility or prejudice simply because they are seeking for the subject to stop existing or receive retribution. Very often they believe magic is involved and other times they're only seeking the "good" release of catharsis. It's all about perspective.

Is it not obvious what I mean? Anti-mormons want something "good" to happen with the future of Mormonism. From the anti perspective "good" includes the church being the subject of "discrimination, persecution, hostility or prejudice" and the also the "good" effects of that treatment...

Which returns us to my original point. You don't believe "discrimination, persecution, hostility or prejudice" can be "good"... but when you believe you have the good magic on your side, acts of "discrimination, persecution, hostility or prejudice" are perceived as justified. Would you like me to provide examples of this phenomenon within the Mormon faith?

[Guest]

...

[_Themis]

Which returns us to my original point. You don't believe "discrimination, persecution, hostility or prejudice" can be "good"... but when you believe you have the good magic on your side, acts of "discrimination, persecution, hostility or prejudice" are perceived as justified. Would you like me to provide examples of this phenomenon within the Mormon faith?

These are negative actions and cannot be good under any conditions when based on ones beliefs, race, gender, etc. While they and some Mormons may engage in them thinking they are justified, they are still wrong. The vast majority of posters here do not fit this description, and I think they number in the very few who you will usually be seen by temple square. Subby wants to attach anyone who disagrees with the church as belonging to this group, but he is wrong as usual. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with others and communicating that disagreement with good intentions without resorting to discrimination, persecution, hostility or prejudice. Most here do just that.

[Guest]

...

[_Themis]

The question would be "Can someone communicate disagreements without resorting to discrimination,persecution or hostility?"

And I would say No if you live in Utah.

I would say location has nothing to do with it. Many can and do in Utah and elsewhere, but I understand you may mean many don't in Utah whether LDS believer or not.

[Guest]

...

[_subgenius]

I understood your question and already answered.

Let me be a little clearer: Some one behaves as an anti-mormon for the same reason anyone does anything... they believe something "good" will happen

There is no reason nor rationale for that position - Hedonism is going to be a hard sell on this issue my friend.

Personally, i can say that my motivation for my "Pro" position is rather different than from any of my "Anti" positions.

There seems to be such a contrary notion per convenience amongst many of the critics around here.
On the one hand they insist that emotion (feelings / spirituality) is unreliable and inconsistent - therefore less desirable.
On the other hand they insist that the mind (logic / materialism ) is reliable and consistent - therefore desirable
but
they also insist that emotions are non-existent without the mind...that the mind is the creator of emotion and discerning of emotion...yet the mind can somehow....magically....free itself from emotion.
poppycock.

Nevertheless,
your response that people do everything because of "Faith" is interesting.....

[_Themis]

Personally, i can say that my motivation for my "Pro" position is rather different than from any of my "Anti" positions.

Your pro positions inform your anti ones. I am pro health, which leads me to be anti towards many other things like smoking.

[_Alfredo]

I understood your question and already answered.

Let me be a little clearer: Some one behaves as an anti-mormon for the same reason anyone does anything... they believe something "good" will happen

There is no reason nor rationale for that position - Hedonism is going to be a hard sell on this issue my friend.

Personally, i can say that my motivation for my "Pro" position is rather different than from any of my "Anti" positions.

There seems to be such a contrary notion per convenience amongst many of the critics around here.
On the one hand they insist that emotion (feelings / spirituality) is unreliable and inconsistent - therefore less desirable.
On the other hand they insist that the mind (logic / materialism ) is reliable and consistent - therefore desirable
but
they also insist that emotions are non-existent without the mind...that the mind is the creator of emotion and discerning of emotion...yet the mind can somehow....magically....free itself from emotion.
poppycock.

Nevertheless,
your response that people do everything because of "Faith" is interesting.....

If by interesting you mean my response doesn't fit your strawman, then sure.

My idea includes the assertion that, in some fundamental sense, we all operate precariously from insufficient information. Often, our biggest mistake is thinking some spiritually fulfilling benifit verifies our chosen paradigm. There's simply no discernable defense of the truth of any religious paradigm, only discussions about how each paradigm, while incompatible, are all supported the by the same subjective, circumstantial evidence (spiritual benefits), just in different degrees.

So, what's the next step if we think the best evidence for one paradigm is the very same sort of evidence offered by others. The only difference in support between contrary religious paradigms seems to the who and not the why. The why is always the same at it's fundamental level.

It's not a hard sell at all to claim people discriminate and such because they believe something "good" will happen. You'll have to explain what you mean.

[_subgenius]

Personally, i can say that my motivation for my "Pro" position is rather different than from any of my "Anti" positions.

Your pro positions inform your anti ones. I am pro health, which leads me to be anti towards many other things like smoking.

this is a ridiculous parallel you are trying to draw here ! - An absolute incompetent conclusion to apply across the board!

Are you stating that one either becomes Pro-something because they first were Anti-something or that they are Anti-something because first they are Pro-something ?
you may, seemingly, be schizophrenic.

It is obvious from the OP that "Anti" is in terms of contrary and hostile towards.
One can easily be Pro-health but not Anti-smoking or Pro-smoking.
One can easily be Pro-Republican without being Anti-Democrat or Anti-Libertarian
Personally, i do not care for the taste of broccoli - but i am neither anti-broccoli nor pro-broccoli, but i am Pro-vegetable and Pro-doughnut!

so, while i understand your need to simplify things to the idiomatic "2 sides of the same coin", there has been little to prove that a coin exists on this matter.