"Anti-Mormon": The Adventures of an Epithet

[_moksha]

I think of anti-mormons as those who have an obsession about forever needling the Church. They need not even be the teller of lies. Lying only reduces their credibility and makes them ineffective. The most effective anti-mormons are those who obsessively relate non-faith promoting history to those who have never heard this history before. Those who are not obsessive and can see both good and bad in the LDS Church are merely critics.

[_Mercury]

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

Oh dannyboy. Go crawl into your cell. Deseret does not need you.

This brings new meaning to "Peterson is droning on and on again".

[_Calculus Crusader]

conditioning . . . brainwashing

Urgent! Tin-foil helmets should be issued immediately!

Tin-foil helmets? Is that your latest hypothesis concerning the true meaning of "steel" in the Book of Mormon?

[_Daniel Peterson]

It's their right I suppose. And like you, I don't mind being called names, it really doesn't hurt me that L-Skinny participants may have had a big round of high-fives at my expense.

Does it disappoint you to learn that, excepting me, they don't know you exist?

[_Gadianton]

Does it disappoint you to learn that, excepting me, they don't know you exist?

How do you know that they don't know I exist? Unless, of course, the "hive-mind" theory that Evolution proposed has some merit?

[_Daniel Peterson]

How do you know that they don't know I exist? Unless, of course, the "hive-mind" theory that Evolution proposed has some merit?

Well, you're entirely free to imagine that those who post on Skinny-L think about you a lot, talk about you, do high-fives about you, and the like, but, unlike you and Mister Scratch, I'm actually a participant on Skinny-L . . . and neither you, nor, to the best of my recollection, Mister Scratch hisself has ever been mentioned on Skinny-L. No participant on Skinny-L besides me shows any sign of paying any attention to this message board.

Perhaps, of course, they're all fascinated by you but have vowed never to post about you or refer to you. Or something like that.

[_EAllusion]

Russell indeed is a clear-cut example of an apologist who will innocently assert that by the term "anti-Mormon" he just means someone who vocally disagrees with the truth-claims of the LDS Church and ask anyone who fits that definition to accept his use of the label. Then on the other hand he'll claim the most vile things about anti-Mormons as a class. As a consquence, he's asserting anyone who vocally disagrees with the LDS Church or many of its leaders assertions is a liar, moron, bigot, hate-monger, etc. DCP has watched his fellow apologist do this. Yet DCP also denied he's seen, "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." That must to speak to DCP's character in some way.

[_Some Schmo]

I get a kick out of the term “anti-mormon” and the underlying negative connotations it’s loaded with, contrary to the claims of some Mormons who use it. I just think it’s funny that a Mormon who is offended by knocks against their church take them as knocks against the people who attend it.

I’m pretty confident that evolution happened. Does that make me an “evolutionist?” Should I be insulted when someone disputes or criticizes evolution, or is it more sensible to just think, “Well, that’s your problem. The evidence for evolution is all over the place. If you want to ignore it, so be it.” I mean, my belief in evolution does not define me, so why should it upset me when someone criticizes the theory? Even better, should I start calling those people “anti-evolutionists” and then begin to make broad claims about this newly labeled class of people? Wouldn’t that just say more about my own lack of confidence in my belief than it does about them?

It seems to me that if Mormons were really that confident in their “knowledge” that the church is “true,” they wouldn’t feel threatened by people who claim it isn’t or criticize various aspects of it (to speak nothing of their need for the monthly group-think brainwashing session that is F&T meeting).

I suppose the real difference between Mormons and people who believe in evolution is the fact that there’s actually evidence (boatloads of it, in fact) for evolution. I’m sure that makes it much easier to stay calm when the ideas are challenged.

[_Runtu]

It really doesn't matter what epithet people use, does it? The use says much more about the person using it than the person it is directed at. That said, some people seem to use the term "anti-Mormon" with a forked tongue. On the one hand, they will say that anti-Mormons are just those opposed to the church and its teachings, so it's a merely descriptive term; but then on the other they will ascribe the most evil and dishonest attributes to "anti-Mormons" as a class of people. It's this kind of labeling that is both intellectually dishonest and lazy. And it contributes nothing to the conversation.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Yet DCP also denied he's seen, "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." That must to speak to DCP's character in some way.

Does the fact that I've never made such a denial, that, in fact, I have seen such behavior, and that your claim is false speak to your character in any way?