What is an anti-Mormon?

[_Polygamy-Porter]

However, I have now been called a 'troll' and 'the biggest anti-Mormon' here...and I have only been here, what...three or four days?

You're not being serious, surely?

Daniel??

[_Dr. Shades]

She/he is your garden variety troll.

Hi Polygamy Porter,

With all possible respect, . . . have you noticed that whenever a new non-critic appears, you ALWAYS accuse him or her of being a troll, literally EVERY TIME?

Why the pattern?

[_moksha]

Niadna is the biggest anti-Mormon here.

She/he is your garden variety troll.

Someone who presents an orthodox Mormon point of view represents a challenge for most posters here to sharpen their reflexes and address what they disagree with on a point by point basis. Doing a FAIR-style dog pile seems like something you guys would condemn elsewhere.

Orthodox Mormon posters are needed to keep this board fresh and vibrant, otherwise, it can take on that rotting shark odor you get when board moderators kick out the interesting posters.

Porter, this is a chance for you to try out some of your A level material. We know you can do it since we've seen it in the past.

[_Res Ipsa]

Well said, penguin. Well said.

And watch out for those sharks. Or is it seals?

[_Shulem]

She/he is your garden variety troll.

Hi Polygamy Porter,

With all possible respect, . . . have you noticed that whenever a new non-critic appears, you ALWAYS accuse him or her of being a troll, literally EVERY TIME?

Why the pattern?

I noticed that too. It's totally unfair. I think he should apologize.

[_Niadna]

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?

Yes. It is.

It is important to me because it is a reminder to me that not everybody who is critical of my beliefs is the same. The problem I see is that just as many antis generalize Mormons as ALL 'Satanists,' or 'Cultists' or "[insert some demeaning, insulting and asinine insult here]," so so many Mormons on internet forums lump all internet opponents together under 'anti-Mormon,' equating the sincere and civil critic who has problems with doctrine.....with the folks who want to burn your printing press down and enact 'extermination orders.'

So, I developed this 'taxonomy,' (and as a teacher, I really should have figured out that this is what I was doing) for myself, to differentiate between the types of criticism/attacks I deal with. I figured out that, since one cannot figure out what people are actually thinking when they write stuff on the internet, then one can only judge by the actual things they write: hence the classification by 'civility.'

Critic: those who write with respect, address the problem and do NOT use ad hominems and other deliberate fallacies.

anti: those who use ad hominems and other deliberately fallacious arguments, who deliberately misrepresent, quote mine, repeat disproved accusations as if no-one has responded...well, I think you all know the sorts of things used. It gets fairly obvious.

extreme anti; those who take 'anti' to the...pardon me...extreme level, and who approve of, justify, or threaten physical harm because of the beliefs of the group being attacked.

I have no idea, of course, if those who write like extreme antis would offer me lemonade and cookies and want me to teach them how to piece a quilt in 'real life.' All I can do is judge the writings.

What this taxonomy does for ME is remind me that not everybody wants to burn down the Temples, not everybody treats discussions with Mormons about Mormonism is actually playing the flame game, and that I shouldn't react to everybody as if they did indeed carry rhetorical torches and pitchforks. That I shouldn't respond to the sincere critical post as if the writer had just threatened to throw me to alligators.

Telling YOU folks all this is my way of letting you know that If *I* call you an anti or an extreme anti, you have really been rude, insulting, and deliberately nasty, and NOT simply because you don't agree with me. When I call one of you an anti, you will know you have been deliberately insulted, because I have real criteria posts must meet before I can call a writer that.

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.

Actually, the term wasn't FIRST used by Joseph. It was FIRST used by those who hated Mormons. Really.They were rather proud of being anti (against) Mormons.

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.

Yep...so not everybody is an 'anti,' and that's what this taxonomy is all about.

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.

And those are antis.

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!

Some Mormons do that. I don't. What this was all about for me is a sort of 'notice.' I don't call everybody who disagrees with me an 'anti.' That was the whole point.

When I do call someone that, it's because they have proven, by their words, that they are.

This is just silly. The name calling cuts both ways.

Of course it does.

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".

We have to call them something. I think 'haters' is a bit strong. Perhaps 'hate' is something reserved for those who are involved past the point of words.

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.

To be honest, I've been around debate forums too long. When I write (or unload) I am quite aware that it's not a private conversation and that anybody who reads it can, and probably will, respond. ;)

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?

That's a rhetorical question, yes?

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.

I'm not interested in the hearts and internal feelings of those who post. I'm simply describing what I classify that which is written.

I can only judge the fruit, not the tree.

[_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.

That's taking something out of context with a vengeance, I believe. The above was an example of the sort of thing that was being done IN that discussion about tithing. Not specifically by evangelicals (I don't really know what belief system any of you currently espouse, you realize), but as an example of hypocrisy.

[_Lemmie]

Orthodox Mormon posters are needed to keep this board fresh and vibrant, otherwise, it can take on that rotting shark odor you get when board moderators kick out the interesting posters.

My youngest son and his friends are constantly using new slang that for the life of me I cannot decipher. I find myself regularly asking "does that mean it's good or bad?"

I feel the same way here. When Symmachus, Kishkumen, Analytics, Johannes and others were recently discussing Carrier's use of Bayesian analysis in historical settings, I wasn't aware of any Orthodox Mormons posting as such in that thread. In fact, one's religious/non-religious background seemed completely irrelevant to the ideas being discussed, and I don't recall a single mormon-related label, positive or negative, applied to anyone's contribution. It certainly seemed as though the posts were being judged on their content. It was a fascinating discussion, one you could even call 'fresh and vibrant', and I learned a great deal from what I consider some very esteemed minds. Threads like that are one of the main reasons I continue to read here.

But, to keep up with our proper slang, and with all due respect to my favorite penguin sage, I suppose I should describe that thread as 'having that rotting shark odor!'

Telling YOU folks all this is my way of letting you know that If *I* call you an anti or an extreme anti, you have really been rude, insulting, and deliberately nasty, and NOT simply because you don't agree with me.

'YOU folks'? That's an interesting way of putting it. You could just tell a poster that their content is rude, insulting, or deliberately nasty, and leave the mormon-related labels out of it.

For example, I might say to you that, although you may not have meant it that way, 'YOU folks' can be taken as a deliberately provocative and insulting statement, typically intended to create a negative division between groups. I don't assume you said it because you belong to a particular Mormon group, however, I am just commenting on the content of your statement.

[_Niadna]

Orthodox Mormon posters are needed to keep this board fresh and vibrant, otherwise, it can take on that rotting shark odor you get when board moderators kick out the interesting posters.

My youngest son and his friends are constantly using new slang that for the life of me I cannot decipher. I find myself regularly asking "does that mean it's good or bad?"

I feel the same way here. When Symmachus, Kishkumen, Analytics, Johannes and others were recently discussing Carrier's use of Bayesian analysis in historical settings, I wasn't aware of any Orthodox Mormons posting as such in that thread. In fact, one's religious/non-religious background seemed completely irrelevant to the ideas being discussed, and I don't recall a single mormon-related label, positive or negative, applied to anyone's contribution. It certainly seemed as though the posts were being judged on their content. It was a fascinating discussion, one you could even call 'fresh and vibrant', and I learned a great deal from what I consider some very esteemed minds. Threads like that are one of the main reasons I continue to read here.

But, to keep up with our proper slang, and with all due respect to my favorite penguin sage, I suppose I should describe that thread as 'having that rotting shark odor!'

Telling YOU folks all this is my way of letting you know that If *I* call you an anti or an extreme anti, you have really been rude, insulting, and deliberately nasty, and NOT simply because you don't agree with me.

'YOU folks'? That's an interesting way of putting it. You could just tell a poster that their content is rude, insulting, or deliberately nasty, and leave the mormon-related labels out of it.

For example, I might say to you that, although you may not have meant it that way, 'YOU folks' can be taken as a deliberately provocative and insulting statement, typically intended to create a negative division between groups. I don't assume you said it because you belong to a particular Mormon group, however, I am just commenting on the content of your statement.

....and I might say to you that, although you may not have meant it that way, taking offense at being folded in with "YOU folks" is taking offense where none is offered.

There's only one of me posting here. EVERYBODY else is everybody else. "YOU folks" refers to that everybody else who is not me. Just as, if you used 'YOU folks" on the forum to describe all who might see it, I would assume that I was one of those 'folks,' since I'm not you.

Darn, that came out wrong. I don't quite know how else to express it, though. I'm the only one typing on my keyboard. You are all 'out there.' I don't know you. You are ALL 'you folks.'

I certainly cannot be differentiating between one group and another; I have no clue who is Mormon (of whatever level of belief or doubt) or who is not.

[_Fence Sitter]

Someone who presents an orthodox Mormon point of view represents a challenge for most posters here to sharpen their reflexes and address what they disagree with on a point by point basis. Doing a FAIR-style dog pile seems like something you guys would condemn elsewhere.

Orthodox Mormon posters are needed to keep this board fresh and vibrant, otherwise, it can take on that rotting shark odor you get when board moderators kick out the interesting posters.

Very true Moksha. It is difficult to keep mainstream believers here of any sort due to that. Your reference to MAD is well taken, and in addition to the lopsided moderation over there, we also see the same sort of dog-piling occurring over there when any mildly unorthodox views are offered.