DiscussMormonism.com

Mister Scratch wrote:As KimberlyAnn mentioned on another thread, the poster called "GoodK" has made quite a splash over on the aptly named MAD board, specifically on a terrific thread called, "Anti-Mormon: the label, what it means, and how it's used." Here is GoodK's opening post:

GoodK wrote:What does the label mean - and what is the difference between an anti-Mormon and a non-Mormon?
Can someone be a skeptic, or does that make them an anti-Mormon?

Why is the label used?

I suspect it is used because the term plays into the idea: "The righteous will be persecuted by the wicked, but God will lead his people, and his work will go forward."

I think the term is pretty rude.

This is a topic which has come up many times before, of course. Critics and skeptics frequently object to the term, since, as it is used by more rabid TBMs (e.g., Pahoran), it carries a bite akin to "anti-Semite." But some TBMs, and especially some Mopologists, don't want to commit to this particular semantic interpretation. They want to be able to freely dole out the term "anti-Mormon" without making a clear declaration as to its power to insult or harm---in short, they don't want to be held responsible for the phrase.

Here is "Scotty Dog" Lloyd weighing in:

Scott Lloyd wrote:The prefix anti- means "against." So if a person positions himself in overt opposition to (not just disagreement with) Mormonism, he has no reasonable grounds to object to being denoted as anti-Mormon.

This is what I think we might refer to as the "soft" definition of "anti-Mormon." I.e., it is safe, it just describes opposition, it isn't freighted with all sorts of negative and harmful and hurtful connotations.

But wait, here is Scotty L. waffling already:

Merely being skeptical about Mormonism does not necessarily make one an opponent of it.

Again, you would have to oppose, not just disagree with Mormonism for the definition to apply.

And here's GoodK making a solid point:

GoodK wrote:I don't think it is rude to call someone an anti-mormon who indeed considers themselves to be anti-Mormon, but I don't think people using the label care if the label is appropriate or not.

Can you guess what the TBM reply to this might be? Sure you can!

Scotty Dog Lloyd wrote:It makes no difference whether or not the person likes the term. If he is behaving in a way that puts him in active opposition to Mormonism, he is, by definition, anti-Mormon.

Uh, right. And it makes no difference whether LDS consider themselves to be "real Christians." If they embrace beliefs which are wildly divergent from traditional Christianity, then they are, by definition, not traditional Christians! Boy, isn't it fun how definitions can work?

A bit later, The Great Professor comes lumbering in:

Daniel Peterson wrote:

GoodK wrote:What does the label mean - and what is the difference between an anti-mormon and a non-mormon?

There must be at least a dozen threads devoted to this topic.

A non-Mormon is, simply, not a Mormon. Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Catholics, Presbyterians, Sikhs, Jews, and Armenian Orthodox are all non-Mormons.

An anti-Mormon is opposed to Mormonism (and/or to Mormons). That's what the prefix anti- means. Very few Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Catholics, Presbyterians, Sikhs, Jews, or Armenian Orthodox are anti-Mormons.

We also speak of anti-coagulants, anti-abortionists, anti-Communists, antilock brakes, antihistamines, antacids, anti-bacterial soaps, anti-logging activists, anti-Semitism, antitrust laws, the nineteenth-century anti-Masonic movement, and hundreds of other such things.

GoodK wrote:Can someone be a skeptic, or does that make them an anti-mormon?

Being a skeptic doesn't necessarily make one an anti-Mormon.

GoodK wrote:Why is the label used?

For the same reason that words are typically used: to refer to things or actions in the real world, and, thus, to communicate.

GoodK wrote:I suspect it is used because the term plays into the idea : "The righteous will be persecuted by the wicked, but God will lead his people, and his work will go forward."

I know of no basis for your suspicion. It certainly isn't true in my case.

GoodK wrote:I think the term is pretty rude.

Do you also regard it as rude to use words like anti-fungal and anti-trust? Would it have been an insult to have called a member of the French Resistance "anti-Nazi" or to refer to a member of Christian Women for Life as "anti-abortion"?

Very interesting! Is DCP really willing to head down this rabbit hole? Does he really want to try and make the case that you get to call your opponent whatever you'd like, even if said opponent objects strenuously to the label?

Later, Scotty Dog slips up (which GoodK notices) and admits that, in fact, he actually does use the term "anti-Mormon" as derogatory, rather than purely descriptive:

GoodK wrote:

Scott Lloyd wrote:If however, someone does behave in opposition to my religious faith, I reserve the right to use a serviceable term such as anti-Mormon to aptly and accurately describe that person.

I think this captures the spirit of my question rather well. It seems like the term is wielded as more than just an innocent definition like anti-trust, as Professor Peterson so cleverly put it.

Indeed. DCP's anxious flailing about reveals yet another weak spot in the Mopologists' verbal artillery. It seems clear that TBMs would like to place critics and skeptics on a par with the same kinds of "anti-Mormons" who were responsible for Haun's Mill and Carthage.

Here is another intriguing exchange:

Daniel Peterson wrote:

GoodK wrote:This would be more convincing if people outside of Mormonism used the word too. In fact, it seems that only Mormons use the term

Robert McKay, formerly of Utah Missions Inc., referred to himself quite cheerfully as an anti-Mormon, and I've known others.

GoodK wrote:I haven't been able to find one self proclaimed anti-mormon on the web.

You can't have looked for very long.

Here's somebody who was once president of the National Anti-Mormon League:

http://www.digital-editions.com/HUNTINGTON.htm

And here's a statement from Rhonda M Abrams, who was at the time the Regional Director for The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith -- and, manifestly, a Jew:

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/nccj.htm

Those took me less than a second to find.

GoodK wrote:Like I said, I think labeling someone a label that they don't think applies to them, or that doesn't apply to them is rude.

I've met appallingly racist people and disgustingly anti-Semitic people. They may or may not like being identified as bigots, racists, and/or anti-Semites.

Tough luck.

Hold on, though. Most of us here are well aware of the fact that DCP typically does not like to cite sources. Here's why:

GoodK wrote:F.Y.I neither of those links were to a website of someone who was labeling themself/themselves anti-mormon. Maybe you looked too quickly.

Tough luck?

Lol.... He quickly tries to backtrack and laugh the whole thing off:

DCP wrote:I presume that the National Anti-Mormon League named itself. Do you have any reason to suggest otherwise? And the fact that they're probably defunct and, thus, lack a website, is reason to rejoice.

Give it up, GoodK. This is silly.

And the reply:

GoodK wrote:Sounds like you'd rather give up Professor. I don't see anything silly about me being right about the links you provided? They are in fact links to people labeling others as Anti-Mormons, which seems to prove my point.

You are more than happy to disconnect from this thread if you'd like, although it is a pleasure to speak to you.

Elsewhere, DCP elaborates a bit more on the definition of "anti-Mormon":

Daniel Peterson wrote:

Jaybear wrote:I see the term, "anti-mormon" as on par with "anti-Semite."

While the term anti-Semite refers to a hostility to Semitic people, and never is used to denote opposition to "Semitic architecture" or Semitic history for the simple reason that such concepts scarcely exist, the term anti-Mormon cannot be presumed to have the limited semantic range that you wish to assign to it because the adjective Mormon is used to refer to a wider range of phenomena than merely the animate human or personal.

In other words, this only re-affirms what I said earlier: Mopologists want to be able to put relatively benign critics of Mormon doctrines and policy on a par with the murderers at Carthage. It is more convenient for them, from a polemics standpoint, to lump everything together. DCP is a good writer, and he even boasts about his grasp of the English language at one point on the thread, and yet here he is advocating for hazy definitional clarity? It's either that, or he and S. Lloyd and other pro-"anti-Mormon" advocates are clinging to this usage out of pure spite. The two options available to TBMs here---definitional laziness or abject hate---don't seem very good, in my opinion.

Just in case there were any doubts remaining about whether or not DCP had gotten his butt handed to him, here is one of his de rigueur "see ya" posts:

The Great Professor wrote:

GoodK wrote:Let me know when you are ready to explain why you don't think cult should be used in polemics, and anti-mormon should.

I've done so. Here on this thread. Twice. I've also explained my problems with the term cult at length, in print. That explanation is also now on line.

I leave for Egypt a week from today. I'll be gone for a little more than two weeks. By the time I return, I won't be interested in making any further attempts with you on this topic. If you want to engage what I've written on the subject here and elsewhere prior to my departure, I may be able to respond, though my time is running short. If you don't care to engage what I've written, that's perfectly fine with me.

Uh huh. And here is the coup de grace delivered by GoodK:

GoodK wrote:

Daniel Peterson wrote:I contend that the term anti-Mormon has a perfectly clear meaning

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. And the fact that they might carry bad connotations in some circles (or even in all circles) doesn't demonstrate them to be without value.

By contrast, I've argued at length and in some detail that the term cult (in the sense that evangelical countercultists use it, rather than in its bloodless and uncontroversial anthropology-of-religion sense) has no coherent meaning.

Now to quote your Mormonism as a cult paper: http://www.farmsresearch.com/publicatio ... chapid=549

"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?

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

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

"But if polemics about "cults" inhibit an understanding of groups so designated, and close doors to them, such words occasionally turn against their own masters."

"the word remains "vague and unsatisfactory."

"Those polemicists who use the term "cult" seem—and like to seem—to be conveying by its use hard, objective information about the groups they so designate."

"Instead of the abused, and abusive, term "cult," we propose more neutral terminology, such as "religious movement," "religious group," or "church."


"Perhaps the best approach would be to apply to each group the name that its adherents use in referring to themselves."


That didn't take long.

Ouch! I haven't seen a smackdown of this caliber in quite some time. GoodK really eviscerated DCP's argument in short order. Truly, this was a sight to behold.