More Good Foundation's term of "Anti-Mormon"

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

Would those of you who have a problem with AW's definition of "anti-Mormon" please provide what you think is a reasonable definition?

Or, were you just looking to heckel?


I think his point is that Wyatt's definition flies in the face of how it is generally used. Mormons do not hesitate to call anyone critical of the faith, anti-Mormon. It is used to win half the battle because Mormons have been conditioned to perceive the worst affiliated with that term. Mormons do not stop and think, "Hey, this person/group cannot tolerate our existence or doesn't really understand Mormonism, so I think I'll call it anti-Mormon."

It is thrown out on the table to win half the rhetoric battle from the get-go. Hell, even I have been called anti-Mormon!

Wyatt's piece is disingenuous because he knows just as well as we do that this is not how the term is understood in LDS circles. He just wants to water its usage down to make it sound less offensive to those less deserving of offense.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
Post Reply