Rather than going for a point by point along with commentary, just this.
Scratch wrote:Well, it certainly is. They (I.e., Lloyd and DCP) continue to insist upon the efficacy of the term. They refuse to utilize more accurate terms. They continue to want to have it both ways.
Yes, that's just it. And had it simply been left at that, I would have considered it just a blind spot in judgment. But since Dr. Peterson, astonishingly, made the argument that unlike other terms, Mormon carries a wide definition covering just about everything about the church one can think of, anti-Mormon activity then covers everything from criticism of temple architecture to beatings. Am I wrong this far? If so, where?
Given the succinct knowledge the apologists have that the word covers such a broad range of phenomena in contrast to other words which cover only narrow instances, yet at the same time pushing for the word's validity based on the generic definitional merits of "anti" (e.g., anti-bacterial soap), and failure to further categorize to alleviate any association of critic of ideas with critic of persons or attacker of persons must be by design.
Sure, I can see why he doesn't want to just throw around the word "anti-Mormon". Look at those guys at work who open their mouths up an nothing but profanity comes out, it loses its punch quickly and their words are powerless. Contrast that with someone who carefully picks those times to issue forth a "F***", and who will get some real mileage out of it. By just throwing the word around, the carefully germinated polemic that lumps cautious critics and enraged mobs all together in the same basket will lose its punch.