DCP Gets Reamed by GoodK

[_KimberlyAnn]

I knew it!

Dr. Peterson has already disengaged from the Anti-Mormon thread, pouting, "Never mind. I'm busy."

Whenever it appears he will be bested in a debate, Dr. Peterson disappears. He's done that with other MAD critics, as well.

KA

[_Mister Scratch]

What is the difference between "opposing" and "disagreeing with"?

Likewise, what is the difference between "magic" and "using a seer stone"?

[_Gadianton]

The fact that words can be abused, or that they can't always be clearly and unambiguously defined, doesn't mean that they're useless.

or like the term "Magic".

[_Gadianton]

The most disturbing point made I thought was that "Mormon" applies broadly to all facets of LDS people and therefore implies that if someone takes issues with Mormon doctrine then they are opposed to Mormon people generally. What a convenient word. No wonder there would be objections as critics, especially EV critics, place so much emphasis on hating the doctrines and perhaps the hierarchy but loving the people.

[_Ren]

What is the difference between "opposing" and "disagreeing with"?

I was trying to investigate that question in the thread, but everybody seemed more interested in GoodK ;)

[_Mister Scratch]

Okay, here is Prof. P.'s "tossing in the towel" reply:

Now to quote your Mormonism as a cult paper:

"In at least two important ways, the terms "cult" and "Sekte" are alike: both words maintain an "in-group–out-group" division, and both pack a strong negative charge." -- so does the word anti-mormon, correct?

Sometimes. But not intrinsically. (The National Anti-Mormon League certainly didn't intend, by choosing that title, to stigmatize itself. Robert McKay, formerly of Utah Missions, Inc., surely doesn't think himself a bad person for opposing Mormonism.) By contrast, the term cult, as it is used by sectarian polemicists, conveys virtually nothing but its "strong negative charge."

Actually, the term "cult" conveys all sorts of things about group behavior, organization, socialization, and so forth. Also, when is the term "anti-Mormon", as used by TBMs, anything other than "negative"? When is it ever used in a purely neutral way?

The fact that a term distinguishes one group from another is not only not enough, by itself, to make it illegitimate, it is essential to the nature of language. The adjective happy distinguishes the noun it modifies from nouns modified by the adjective unhappy. Non-Mormons are not Mormons. Baseball players, to the extent that they're baseball players, are not football players. Grasses are not trees. Reptiles are not mammals. Blue isn't red. Chinese isn't Spanish.

The fundamental problem with polemical use of the term cult is that it is pejorative and not only distinguishes between groups but (very strongly) stigmatizes one of the groups by verbal legerdemain rather than by analysis and without any clear definition. Linguistically, it thus becomes closer to a grunt or an expletive than a content-term.

(emphasis added)

Wow. What a load of bull. Verbal legerdemain??? (Translation="semantic magic") I can scarcely believe that The Great Professor is stooping to an argument this lame. Essentially, he is saying the term "cult" stigmatizes groups via magic. He can't explain how this happens, it has nothing to do with the intrinsic qualities of cults, or they way they've been studied, classified, and scrutinized, instead, this stigmatization is the result of Puff the Magic Dragon, waving his Wand in Magic Fun Land.

Can the word anti-Mormon be used pejoratively? Yes. Of course. Many words can. But cult, in the sense in which it is used by sectarian critics of Mormonism, seems to have no sense but a pejorative one.

Perhaps DCP would like to provide us with evidence that "anti-Mormon" is ever used in a neutral way. Oh, wait---that would mean that he'd actually have to cite sources. So much for that!

"But if Mormons and others are to be classed as "cults," the word must be defined. "

And, of course, my position is that no coherent definition of cult, in the relevant sense, is on offer.

And where is the "coherent definition" of "anti-Mormon," which, as I've noted, seems to lump together everything and everyone from Dan Vogel to Governor Boggs.

"The arbitrary and ad hoc character of such attempts at definition is clear..."

Precisely.

Whereas, by contrast, the clear meaning of anti-Mormon, which can be very simply deduced from the clear meaning of the adjective and adjectival noun Mormon and the clear meaning of the prefix anti, is neither arbitrary nor ad hoc nor difficult to understand.

That people can disagree about when to apply the term anti-Mormon is no more lethal to the utility of the term than is the fact that people can and do disagree just as easily about when to apply terms like good, beautiful, tall, convincing, orthodox, useful, delicious, fair, plausible, long, entertaining, bright, ridiculous, important, rich, difficult, and worthwhile.

"Ridiculous" is right.

"the word [cult] remains "vague and unsatisfactory."

Exactly. And intrinsically so.

That didn't take long.

And your little excursion plainly didn't accomplish much, either.

Never mind. I'm busy.

Of course he is. What the "excursion" proves is that Mopologists are hypocrites when it comes to definitional utility. All one needs for proof of this is to head on over to the FARMS website and look at Bill Hamblin's novella-length rant against the use of the word "magic".

[_dartagnan]

No, that isn't a sock-puppet of mine.

I think the problem here isn't the prefix anti, but the word Mormon. The word can be either a noun (Mormon person) or adjective (type of beliefs), so it is ambiguous in this case.

This ambiguity is avoided with other examples. For someone who is anti-Islamic beliefs, one can simply claim to be anti-Islam. However, if one is truly against the believers in Islam, one could claim to be anti-Muslim, which carries with it strong overtones of bigotry.

I think most LDS apologist realize this, and instead of making adjustments for the ambiguitiy, for the sake of charity and giving some critics the benefit of the doubt, they'd rather be "technically" correct and brush any one and any thing that poses problems for the Church, as "anti-Mormon." They want their readers to make judgments immediately and as negative as possible. This is why FARMS is dealing with double-standards here.

[_Mister Scratch]

The most disturbing point made I thought was that "Mormon" applies broadly to all facets of LDS people and therefore implies that if someone takes issues with Mormon doctrine then they are opposed to Mormon people generally.

Yes, I agree. There is something distinctly Orwellian about this particular bit of Mopologetic sophistry. Really, the definitional looseness seems meant to help LDS defenders smear their critics with as broad a brush as possible. I mean, why treat serious critics sincerely and with respect when it's far easier to simply lump them together with Boggs, Bennett, Hoffman, and Lord knows who else? They're all bad, so tar the whole lot of them with the same label! That'll keep the doubters in check!

[_dartagnan]

The most disturbing point made I thought was that "Mormon" applies broadly to all facets of LDS people and therefore implies that if someone takes issues with Mormon doctrine then they are opposed to Mormon people generally.

Yea that is pretty stupid. But that is precisely what DCP told me in another context. He absolutely loved to accuse me in public of condemning a "billion" Muslims, if I dared say anything less than flattering about Islam.

I asked him if it were possible to criticize Islam the faith without actually criticizing the people who believe in it, and he said something like, "I doubt it."

Why?

Is it not possible to criticize communism without criticizing the people who live under communism?

More importantly, is it not possible to criticize historic Christianity as apostate, without criticizing all traditional Christians?

Somehow I doubt DCP would say "I doubt it" to that question, because he would then concede that traditional Mormonism is bogoted and intolerant towards all other Christians, and is therefore no better than the anti-Mormons he wishes to brand.

[_beastie]

beastie wrote:

What is the difference between "opposing" and "disagreeing with"?


I was trying to investigate that question in the thread, but everybody seemed more interested in GoodK ;)

If I were to make an educated guess (my education being long experience interneting with apologists), I would assume that the crucial difference is that the "opposer" actually vocalizes his/her disagreement with Mormonism, whereas the "disagreer" just keeps it to her/himself. This is how they distinguish between "exmormon" and "antimormons". The point always seems to be that the "good" thing, the ethical and sane thing, is to keep quiet about one's disagreement with Mormonism. Someone once aptly pointed out that it seemed a conflict of interest for apologist to make this assertion, but that was, of course, ignored.

I have always thought this distinction was patently silly. I know "exmormons" or people who "disagree" with Mormonism, but aren't willing or interested enough to discuss it with anyone (other than a family member, such as myself) whose views are even more harsh towards Mormonism than mine are. Yet the simple fact that I vocalize my disagreement, and that I'm interested enough to discuss it with people, somehow makes me an "antimormon" or an "opposer" instead of just an exmormon.

The obvious point is that they think we should just shut up, and if we don't, we're ethically challenged. Kind of like how the LDS leaders have always portrayed "apostates" as well.