DiscussMormonism.com

Not long ago I drew attention to the sterilization of the term "anti-Mormon" by a few senior apologists in what seemed to be a campaign to bring a large, wooden horse past the gates of a credulous community of critics.

Eallusion raised the question,

Eallusion wrote:Do you believe that people on the one hand define "anti-Mormon" in generic terms meaning something like, "Opposed to the truth claims of the LDS Church" and with the other hand fill the term with all sorts of negative associations usually centering around stupidity and immorality?

To which, one senior apologist simply responded, "No".

I skimmed through the correspondences between some of the senior apologists and James White recently, and I was surprised to find a good amount of the discussion revolving around the definition of the term "anti-Mormon". Professors Midgley, Hamblin, and Peterson all feigned ignorance over White's objection to the term, and tried to convince him the term was in no way loaded.

Well, we know about "Novak's rule" and now, thanks to Tom and Mister Scratch, "America's funniest anti-Mormon". We know that some apologists find it quite fulfilling to leap from the body of their hollow horse beneath the cover of night, and laugh and scorn the critics for having low intelligence and morals.

So I thought, since I was on SHIELDS already, why not let the contributors to shields themselves tell us what the word "anti-Mormon" means to them? I simply spent about 5 minutes clicking on links randomly and searching for the word.

Scott Spendlove wrote:As with most anti's, someone who fell from grace who can't face his own weaknesses and chooses, instead, to find fault with the Church and its teachings

Scott Lloyd wrote:Moreover, it bears out what one author characterized as a rule that seems to be followed by most anti-Mormons: The end (converting Mormons) justifies the means (dishonesty) because, after all, one is doing God a favor.

DCP wrote:Vintage anti-Mormon definitional games

Malin Jacobs wrote:The unscholarly practice of quoting from secondary sources, without attribution, as if they were quoting from primary sources, is SOP for the majority of anti-Mormons.

Their plans are laid bare. A devestating blow, indeed.

Apparently quite unlike Scratchism, Mormon apologetics isn't the product of a hive-mind.

Daniel Peterson wrote:Apparently quite unlike Scratchism, Mormon apologetics isn't the product of a hive-mind.

If the plan is to claim, on the one hand, that "anti-Mormon" merely means "opposed to the truth claims of the LDS Church," while, on the other hand, continually asserting---implicitly or otherwise---that it is indeed a loaded term....well, then, it would seem that Mopologists are operating according to a "hive" mentality.

Daniel Peterson wrote:...Mormon apologetics isn't the product of a hive-mind.

No, it is a product of several hive-minded groups. There are a plethora of apologetic camps, each hive-mind producing enough smoke to take the focus away from the really big holes in branded theodicy -- producing wonderful gems like -- the LGT, Redaction theory, 2-Adams, missing papyri, the catalyst, local/global flood, tight/loose translation, seer-stones were training aids for the budding prophet, "show me Lehi's DNA", and my personal favorite -- How could a simple farm boy like Joseph "reveal" so many advanced, enlightened thoughts... as if the dark ages ended in 1820,, and so on and so on --


and to the OP -- Yes there is a hive-mind that is branding the term "anti-mormon" -- the word is used to create fear in current-Mormons - as if anyone who tastes "the bitter fruits of apostasy" and holds beliefs contrary to the "hive-mind" -- has sold their eternal soul to the devil, and will be forever separated from their loved ones by a door they will not hold a recommend to pass through, even if they do know the hand-shakes

Is it significant that Gadianton Scratch's opening post features a Trojan horse?

Funny!

Daniel Peterson wrote:Funny!

Not nearly as funny as the thought of placing mental Trojan every time I read apologetic papers & reviews. They are fun, thought provoking, and nothing I want to carry with me forever.

Different joke.

Maybe, in fact, Gadianton is spoofing . . . Mister Scratch!

Very, very subtle.

evolving wrote:Yes there is a hive-mind that is branding the term "anti-mormon" -- the word is used to create fear in current-Mormons - as if anyone who tastes "the bitter fruits of apostasy" and holds beliefs contrary to the "hive-mind"

An important point, Evolving. Part of this conditioning is a little more subtle. As I read through the SHIELDS material, the term "anti-Mormon" is used so often and repetitively that for an outsider I'm sure, the brainwashing is obvious. It's dropped repeatedly that "anti-Mormons murdered Joseph Smith", and things like that. So potential guilt by the slightest association is huge for the apologists.

Gadianton wrote:conditioning . . . brainwashing

Urgent! Tin-foil helmets should be issued immediately!

Gadianton wrote:potential guilt by the slightest association is huge for the apologists.

Shouldn't that be "The Apologists"?

If the plan is to claim, on the one hand, that "anti-Mormon" merely means "opposed to the truth claims of the LDS Church," while, on the other hand, continually asserting---implicitly or otherwise---that it is indeed a loaded term....well, then, it would seem that Mopologists are operating according to a "hive" mentality.

I don't apply the term "antiMormon" to those merely opposed to our truth claims. I reserve that for those who intentionally lie or deceive or negatively sensationalize about the Church.