What is an anti-Mormon?

[_RockSlider]

I've defended the use of labels in the past. I still believe they are often useful for discussions and often serve the purpose, like a picture, that tells a thousand words. Of course stereotyping always has its down sides.

How many of you know a Chapel Mormon, a Nuanced Mormon, a Liberal Mormon, a TBM etc?

[_Niadna]

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.

this is true. AND it is why I explained how I personally use 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?

Nope. It's animosity in many cases.

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.

Except of course that very few of you ARE waiting to see how I 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.

Of course. We all do that for ourselves. The paragraph you are objecting to simply said that if MY opinion meant anything, and people didn't want to be seen as antis BY ME, then they could behave a certain way. If my opinion doesn't matter, then, well...just keep on keeping on. How is that 'judgemental,' any more than any opinion belonging to anybody else is?

Why should I have any obligation to alter my behavior in a way that conforms to your made up labels?

You don't.

Unless you want to live your life according to my perceptions of you. I don't think that anybody on the planet, really, gives a hoot whether I personally approve of them.

Except perhaps my dog and my kids, and perhaps not my kids.

Whether to apply labels at all and which labels to apply are your own choices and you are responsible for those choices.

Absolutely. So...what's the problem with explaining what those labels MEAN to me, so that if I use one, you will know precisely what *I* mean by them?

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.

We'll just have to see. I believe that I have been rather completely consigned to a category by many of you already. One person has consigned me to 'troll' status, and I've been dismissed as a mind-numbed Mormon kool-aid swallower by many more. We'll see how that turns out, as well.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

We'll just have to see. I believe that I have been rather completely consigned to a category by many of you already. One person has consigned me to 'troll' status, and I've been dismissed as a mind-numbed Mormon kool-aid swallower by many more. We'll see how that turns out, as well.

Wow. That was a Petersonian narcissist cum victim clinic 101 if I ever saw one.

Well done, madame. Well done.

- Doc

[_grindael]

So let me get this straight, she is defining these labels for all of us so that when she calls people on this forum or elsewhere names, we will know what she means? Got it. How bizarre.

Well, this has been a rather interesting diversion, but I've got better things to do. Good luck with your little project. And please feel free to post about it if you come up with a way to determine people's actual sincerity. I'd really like to see that.

[_Niadna]

So let me get this straight, she is defining these labels for all of us so that when she calls people on this forum or elsewhere names, we will know what she means? Got it. How bizarre.

I don't, as a general rule, call people names.

It's just that I don't call someone 'anti' just for kicks and giggles, and don't consider everybody who criticizes Mormonism to be anti-Mormon.

Well, this has been a rather interesting diversion, but I've got better things to do. Good luck with your little project. And please feel free to post about it if you come up with a way to determine people's actual sincerity. I'd really like to see that.

I can't judge anybody's 'sincerity." I can only judge the 'fruits.' That is, I can't tell if anybody is sincere about what they write. I can only read what they write.

[_Water Dog]

Niadna is the biggest anti-Mormon here.

[_Stem]

Niadna,

Which of these two stories is true?

Extreme anti-Mormons throw rocks. One woman has threatened to have me hauled out of her church in handcuffs if I so much as showed up to her service, loves to tell about how her neighbor set her dogs on the missionaries for daring to tell her the the Bible wasn't inerrant, threatened to set HER dog on me, and told me that if I were stupid enough to walk down a public street that had a store front church meeting going on, then it was entirely my fault if those in the meeting ran out and threw rocks at me. What in the WORLD was I doing 'flaunting' myself (yeah, those missionary badges are really ostentatious, aren't they?) in a place where there might be people who didn't like Mormons?

Now me, I've had rocks thrown at me, dogs sicced on me...there's a town in Alabama that you couldn't PAY me enough to visit because if I do, I'll be handcuffed, the dogs will be set out and I'll get thrown to the alligators.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=49220

Was the threat to have you arrested if you step into the town or if you show up at her church services? Were dogs sicced on you, or was there a threat of such?

The getting thrown to the alligators in your second rendition (above) is an interesting addition.

[_Res Ipsa]

Stem, why do think the two paragraphs are contradictory or inconsistent? It sounds to me like they encompass a number of different incidents at different times and/or places.

[_Stem]

Stem, why do think the two paragraphs are contradictory or inconsistent? It sounds to me like they encompass a number of different incidents at different times and/or places.

Surely they could be. I just read them each at different times and was curious if they were attempts to describe one incident. afterall how many people are out there trying to get police to arrest LDS folks for being Mormons, when entering someone's church or town?

[_Niadna]

Niadna,

Which of these two stories is true?

Both of them. The first are strictly written threats made, frequently, over the last few months. The 'rocks thrown at me" was considerably longer ago than that...about half a century or so. ;) Why does only one if them have to be true?

Extreme anti-Mormons throw rocks. One woman has threatened to have me hauled out of her church in handcuffs if I so much as showed up to her service, loves to tell about how her neighbor set her dogs on the missionaries for daring to tell her the the Bible wasn't inerrant, threatened to set HER dog on me, and told me that if I were stupid enough to walk down a public street that had a store front church meeting going on, then it was entirely my fault if those in the meeting ran out and threw rocks at me. What in the WORLD was I doing 'flaunting' myself (yeah, those missionary badges are really ostentatious, aren't they?) in a place where there might be people who didn't like Mormons?

Now me, I've had rocks thrown at me, dogs sicced on me...there's a town in Alabama that you couldn't PAY me enough to visit because if I do, I'll be handcuffed, the dogs will be set out and I'll get thrown to the alligators.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=49220

Was the threat to have you arrested if you step into the town or if you show up at her church services?

Church services. This woman allows Mormons to be in her town, on sufference I suppose, but not to come to her services. She claims to be the pastor.

Were dogs sicced on you, or was there a threat of such?

Both. the actual 'siccing' was many years ago. the threat considerably more recent.

Again. Why do you insist that only one of these incidents can be 'true?' That makes no sense.

The getting thrown to the alligators in your second rendition (above) is an interesting addition.

Oh, I didn't believe that one. In actuality she apologized to me about 'teasing' me about the alligators. In fact, she would only toss gay Anglican bishops to them.

And she was deadly serious!