What is an anti-Mormon?

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Joseph Smith Jr was the first "Mormon" anti-Christian.

After all, he did follow the supposed "counsel" of the "personage" who purportedly appeared to him during the so-called "first vision".

[_Niadna]

I'm sorry.

What?

The 'hired by Satan' thing is a nice touch, but I still don't think I get the message you are sending here. My fault, I'm sure. Chemo brain strikes again....

What ever you are dealing with, it is my sincere hope the outcome is good.

Best wishes on that fight.

Thank you. A great many people are fighting that fight, and that's the good news: a LOT of us are winning it. ;)

[_Niadna]

"anti" simply means "opposed". If you want to claim that the person you are conversing with about Mormonism is anti, then you are claiming they are opposed to it. Opposed synonyms:

[SNIP!]

This speaks for itself.

How does one really know if a "critic" is totally sincere or not? If anyone has a method for determining that, I'd love to hear it.

Then why are people so insulted when someone refers to them as 'anti-Mormon?" It must mean more than simply 'against' to THEM.

I can only decide for myself what place in the spectrum of 'my opinion of Mormonism" is. I'm attempting to define my lines for others in order that they might know something about me.

First, I have a great deal of respect for critics who can deal with the subject of the disagreement and refrain from ad hominems, especially when insults are used INSTEAD of logical argument and actual evidence.

Second, if I call someone an 'anti,' it is because that someone has proven, by his or her behavior, that s/he HAS used ad hominems instead of logical argument, that s/he will deliberately misrepresent our beliefs...and prefers to rant and insult instead of discuss and reason.

Third, if I call someone an 'extreme anti..." he or she has already proven that level of animosity, as well.

What I don't get is the level of animosity projected here, at ME, for laying this out; what, do a bunch of you recognize yourselves as 'antis' in the descriptions and you don't like it?

Well, I'm very new. I don't know whether you have been antis according to my definition or not, so, if my definitions bother you and you don't want to be seen that way, then don't behave like antis and I'll never know one way or the other.

Or....you can just be who you are and not worry about what I think. In which case my definitions shouldn't be causing this much angst.

[_grindael]

"anti" simply means "opposed". If you want to claim that the person you are conversing with about Mormonism is anti, then you are claiming they are opposed to it. Opposed synonyms:

[SNIP!]

This speaks for itself.

How does one really know if a "critic" is totally sincere or not? If anyone has a method for determining that, I'd love to hear it.

Then why are people so insulted when someone refers to them as 'anti-Mormon?" It must mean more than simply 'against' to THEM.

I can only decide for myself what place in the spectrum of 'my opinion of Mormonism" is. I'm attempting to define my lines for others in order that they might know something about me.

First, I have a great deal of respect for critics who can deal with the subject of the disagreement and refrain from ad hominems, especially when insults are used INSTEAD of logical argument and actual evidence.

Second, if I call someone an 'anti,' it is because that someone has proven, by his or her behavior, that s/he HAS used ad hominems instead of logical argument, that s/he will deliberately misrepresent our beliefs...and prefers to rant and insult instead of discuss and reason.

Third, if I call someone an 'extreme anti..." he or she has already proven that level of animosity, as well.

What I don't get is the level of animosity projected here, at ME, for laying this out; what, do a bunch of you recognize yourselves as 'antis' in the descriptions and you don't like it?

Well, I'm very new. I don't know whether you have been antis according to my definition or not, so, if my definitions bother you and you don't want to be seen that way, then don't behave like antis and I'll never know one way or the other.

Or....you can just be who you are and not worry about what I think. In which case my definitions shouldn't be causing this much angst.

My two cents... You are just being kind of silly. And really, I don't worry at all what you think, (at least at this point) you are just an anonymous commenter on a discussion board. Is this what is really so important to you, how to grade critics (I use the term loosely) of Mormonism? If you are really so savvy about anti Mormons as you seem to portray here, I think you would be able to answer your own questions. Or are they really just rhetorical? If you really want to know why it bugs some to be called anti Mormons, well, it's because the term has been used as an epithet for just about anyone who was critical of the Mormon faith since the time of Joseph Smith. He did it himself.

But the word "anti" has a negative connotation, as you can see from my exercise above. Unlike the word "Mormon Apologist" which perhaps now is the flip side of an "Anti Mormon", the word Apologist is not in and of itself negative, though many Mormons are rankled to be labeled as one. I was not bothered by your definitions, I was rather amused. I think the whole thing is an exercise in futility because you can't see into someone's heart. And while there certainly are people who do hate the church, hate Mormons and want to see it all destroyed, there are many who do not, who are bothered by the way the church operates in certain areas, the way the leaders act in some ways, etc., etc.

You are going to get ad hominem when things like religion or politics get debated. It always happens. I'm not excusing it, but some people are just dishonest with the facts and want to accuse those that don't agree with them of some godawful things. Critics are just anti's in disguise, wolves in sheep's clothing, the devil lurking in the shadows ready to take down the poor innocent members of the faith. Apologists are all liars. Ad Hominem, is kind of built in to religion. But people do lie. And many don't care about logic and facts.

Oh my, they are attacking our beloved prophet, the evil bastards, Satan's spawn! It's why Satan invented the internet, to prey on the faithful! They must be EXTREME anti's!

This is just silly. The name calling cuts both ways. You are doing it yourself, labeling those who use ad hominem as "antis". Why not call them haters, or something else? Because "anti Mormon" is the designated epithet chosen by the "defenders of the faith".

Being a critic of anything isn't easy. You can't please everyone. What is tolerable to you, may be intolerable to someone else. And really, who are you talking to? Me? Did I attack you? Nope. But since you unloaded on me above, I've just given you my opinion of your little exercise here.

There are better ways of letting people know something about you. You know, I was a missionary too, and I never once got threatened by anyone. Sure I had some verbal exchanges and people got upset, but I never got a rock thrown at me, or anything else for that matter. But if I had, I wouldn't have been too surprised. After all, I was trying to offer them something that perhaps they didn't want. Some people are touchy, and when it comes to religion, people can be downright fanatical. You don't know this?

I've been called an Anti-Mormon. Ex-Mormons who dare to be critical of their former faith often get that. So what? It doesn't bother me a bit. How does an "anti" behave? Have Mormons ever behaved that way? And if so, how should we label them? And really, where is the "logical argument and actual evidence" in this exercise? Can one quantify the sincerity of critics? Apologists?

Silly, man, just silly.

[_Gadianton]

Then why are people so insulted when someone refers to them as 'anti-Mormon?"

Critics can be overly sensitive too and get offended over lame insults; it is possible. More likely though on a message board like this, a disproportionate reaction isn't over being insulted, but the lack of self-awareness displayed by Mormons appropriating persecution credibility for themselves. Very common, "anti-Mormon" is dropped by apologists as equivalent to "anti-Semite," and it's not so much the insinuation that the critic is a Nazi, but that the apologist has suffered any plight whatsoever worthy of mention, let alone a logical connection to the single worst tragedy in modern times.

[_grindael]

Since I didn't know who you are (still don't), I looked at some of your old comments and came across this one.

It's amazing how many evangelicals have criticized the church for owning businesses and being successful at doing so....when there are law firms and websites galore out there teaching them how to purchase and run businesses under the 501c3 laws to make them 'non-profit. I truly hate hypocrisy."

This was in a discussion on tithing, not on Evangelicals. Yet you brought up Evangelicals and then mentioned hypocrisy. Why bring them up at all in your exchange with Water Dog? He didn't. It appears that you are doing what you accuse others of doing.

[_Niadna]

Since I didn't know who you are (still don't), I looked at some of your old comments and came across this one.

It's amazing how many evangelicals have criticized the church for owning businesses and being successful at doing so....when there are law firms and websites galore out there teaching them how to purchase and run businesses under the 501c3 laws to make them 'non-profit. I truly hate hypocrisy."

This was in a discussion on tithing, not on Evangelicals. Yet you brought up Evangelicals and then mentioned hypocrisy. Why bring them up at all in your exchange with Water Dog? He didn't. It appears that you are doing what you accuse others of doing.

....Where is the ad hominem? That is, where have I called any group insulting names? Where have I made a claim I didn't support?

And what was the context in which this comment was made?

and yes, the discussion was on tithing...and on those who CRITICIZE US FOR PAYING IT. I was pointing out that people who criticize us for something...and but do it themselves, are hypocrites.

I'd call that 'being a critic' myself, though I WILL admit to, if not crossing the line into 'anti-hood,' I could certainly see it from where I was.

[_Res Ipsa]

Then why are people so insulted when someone refers to them as 'anti-Mormon?" It must mean more than simply 'against' to THEM.

Why not ask someone who is insulted by the term? In my experience, folks who react strongly to that label do so because they have had family members or friends use that term to dismiss them out of hand or to imply they are under the control of Satan. The term is commonly used as a pejorative in LDS culture, so critics who are former Mormons understand the connotations of the term.

I can only decide for myself what place in the spectrum of 'my opinion of Mormonism" is. I'm attempting to define my lines for others in order that they might know something about me.

First, I have a great deal of respect for critics who can deal with the subject of the disagreement and refrain from ad hominems, especially when insults are used INSTEAD of logical argument and actual evidence.

Second, if I call someone an 'anti,' it is because that someone has proven, by his or her behavior, that s/he HAS used ad hominems instead of logical argument, that s/he will deliberately misrepresent our beliefs...and prefers to rant and insult instead of discuss and reason.

Third, if I call someone an 'extreme anti..." he or she has already proven that level of animosity, as well.

What I don't get is the level of animosity projected here, at ME, for laying this out; what, do a bunch of you recognize yourselves as 'antis' in the descriptions and you don't like it?

Is it possible you are misinterpreting criticism as animosity? I think the whole exercise you’ve presented gets in the way of communication and understanding. Having seen how lots and lots of LDS folks use the term “anti-Mormon” as an excuse to dismiss criticism out of hand, I don’t think it’s surprising that folks here have reacted to your taxonomy with skepticism. We’ll just have to see how you actually use it.

Well, I'm very new. I don't know whether you have been antis according to my definition or not, so, if my definitions bother you and you don't want to be seen that way, then don't behave like antis and I'll never know one way or the other.

I’m pretty sure you don’t intend it, but this sounds very judgmental to me. You’re the one who created a bunch of labels and you will be the one who decides what I “am” based on the labels you made up. Why should I have any obligation to alter my behavior in a way that conforms to your made up labels? Whether to apply labels at all and which labels to apply are your own choices and you are responsible for those choices.

Or....you can just be who you are and not worry about what I think. In which case my definitions shouldn't be causing this much angst.

Again, I think you may be confusing criticism with angst. You asked what folks thought, and folks have done so. Your labels don’t cause me any angst. I think they are a mistake and will get in the way of effective and productive conversation. I’m skeptical that the way you apply them will be much different than I’ve seen them used by many, many folks in the past. But, hey, I’d be delighted to be proven wrong.

[_Physics Guy]

Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of asserting that a statement is false because the person who stated it is a bad person. Simply asserting that a person is bad is not argumentum ad hominem. So for example to say that the Book of Mormon cannot be authentic because Joseph Smith was a con man would be argumentum ad hominem, but to say that Joseph Smith was a con man because he faked the Book of Mormon would not be ad hominem at all. If you want to stop people from calling Smith a con man in any way then you can appeal to politeness but logic won't help.

Moreover, if a form of argument is a fallacy that just means that it can never be a watertight logical proof. Fallacious arguments are often downright stupid arguments, but not necessarily. Sometimes a logical fallacy can still be a good argument. When the crocodile says it will carry monkeys across the stream without eating them, the fact that the statement was made by a crocodile doesn't strictly prove that the statement is false, but it is a good reason for the monkeys not to believe the statement. Suggesting that Joseph Smith might have lied about the Book of Mormon because he had an established career in the inherently dishonest business of scrying for treasure would indeed be argumentum ad hominem, but it's still a fair point to make that you can't just rule out of court.

[_grindael]

and yes, the discussion was on tithing...and on those who CRITICIZE US FOR PAYING IT. I was pointing out that people who criticize us for something...and but do it themselves, are hypocrites.

Yes, it was about paying tithing and this,

"If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If paying tithing means that you can’t pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying tithing means that you don’t have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing."

Actually, the discussion went like this,

Water Dog wrote:

They wanted their donations to actually go towards helping the needy, or taking care of their family, as opposed to having them evaporate in a heartless and unaccountable bureaucracy. Instead of lazily throwing money at a corporation they choose to be proactive and get directly involved in charity work themselves.

You wrote:

Mormons who tithe do that TOO, you know. We are aware that tithing is for one purpose; to pay the bills. To pay for the maintenance of the church buildings, build new ones, build temples, help with education, fund missionary work....all the 'overhead." Because of that, we are also aware that anything we contribute to the WELFARE FUND goes, 100%, to the recipients because tithing pays the administrative costs.

and yes, the church owns businesses and land. Many businesses and a lot of land, and all of those businesses and land belong to fully taxable corporations. The profit from which goes to the church..WELFARE funds. Oh, and I believe that the businesses also support the stipends the GA's get.

It's amazing how many evangelicals have criticized the church for owning businesses and being successful at doing so....when there are law firms and websites galore out there teaching them how to purchase and run businesses under the 501c3 laws to make them 'non-profit."

I truly hate hypocrisy.

Water Dog was speaking of Mormons, not Evangelicals. You then broadbrushed "many" Evangelicals as hypocrites with no evidence but your vague assertion. (You called a group of Evangelicals hypocrites). That's ad hominem, and trying to shift the blame for what the church was doing (taking other people's money and spending it on an unaccountable bureaucracy, according to WD) to those bad, bad, Evangelicals for committing some hypocritical act that you claim they did without supplying any evidence at all to back it up. You labeled them as hypocrites, and provided no evidence that those people had ever attacked the Mormon Church. You do know there are a lot of different factions of Evangelicals, right? It's all about discussing facts and evidence, right?

But I'm sure, in your zeal to blame someone else you never thought of what you were actually doing. But you sure are critical of others you claim are doing the same thing.

That's hypocrisy isn't it? Are you hating yourself right now?