Stem wrote:I've found it's easiest to ignore the term anti-Mormon. When I hear it used these days its usually somebody applying it so freely it means nothing or is used to attack another person, as if doing so somehow addresses the points raised and discussed. it's certainly become a useless term.
Great summary of the phenomenon surrounding the term.
When I went to my bishop on 2012 to talk through my concerns about history/polygamy he kind of scoffed and asked me, "Is this your first encounter with anti-Mormon literature?" The thing is, I was reading In Sacred Loneliness and Rough Stone Rolling and had already described them to him. I kind of didn't know what to say after he said that. The discussion was just over.
How do you have a discussion with someone so insulated from inquiry? I sure couldn't.
But it is interesting how effective the term "Anti-Mormon" is at erecting a wall in some people's minds. I guess I was too rationally arrogant for that to work for me. I assumed nothing could ever pose a serious threat to my beliefs because they were true, dammit!
Thanks for sharing. Bishops are so helpful sometimes. the term certainly works for those promoting fear of the outside.
At some point, when you call everyone who ever dares to disagree with the church an anti-Mormon, the term loses its descriptive capacity because it could literally mean anyone who isn't rigidly on board with the church's every position.
And that brings me back to what I said at the beginning: Being pro- or anti-Mormon requires an emotional or psychological investment that I suspect a lot of us here on this board just don't have anymore.
Well said, Runtu. I was recently accused of being rabidly anti-mormon by a poster here, much to my befuddlement, because I haven't for many decades had, as you called it, the level of "emotional or psychological investment" to truly be anti-mormon. It's one thing to have theoretical discussions here but in the end, the mormon-ness of anything doesn't even register in my daily life. For which I am truly grateful, when I remember to notice!
There is such a thing as wanting to get the narrative right. When you see people who have no regard for the historical facts just butcher it, and say something, well, you're anti-Mormon. I quoted the Bible recently and was asked if I was a Catholic. I said no. But they couldn't understand where I was coming from. I was just quoting the Bible. But to them, there is always an agenda, and they have to categorize you because it makes it easier for them to put you in a box and then shut the lid. It drives them crazy when you have no agenda accept the historical narrative.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door; Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors. One focal point in a random world can change your direction: One step where events converge may alter your perception.
Runtu wrote:True, I find quiet, anonymous service much more praiseworthy than the yellow-shirt kind, but I approve of service for others, no matter what.
So is that a ball (hit but out of bounds)?
How about a list of what hits and other balls exist.
