"Anti-Mormon": The Adventures of an Epithet

[_Mister Scratch]

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?

So, do you therefore acknowledge that the term is abused in the manner EA is describing?

[_Daniel Peterson]

So, do you therefore acknowledge that the term is [sometimes] abused [by some people] in the manner EA is describing?

I said that, didn't I?

[_EAllusion]

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?

I 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? So when a person complains about being labeled an "anti-Mormon" by them, they resort to their neutral, technical definition and deny any inherently negative meaning. But then they turn around and create an appalling negative connotation with the term in a two-faced move demonstrating that the neutral definition is a facade. Pahoran was the most blatant about doing this I've seen, so I see why his name came up. But there's plenty of others who do it too. Know anyone like that DCP?

Your reply was simple enough:

No.

So no, I'm confident what I said wasn't false. You do know people just like that. You denied it. Either you are oblivious to what should be obvious or you aren't as forthcoming with the truth as you ought to be.

If you're looking for wiggle room here, I'm guessing you are going to go for the "two-faced" latter portion of my quote. After all, you might try to argue that such rhetorical shifts aren't a facade, but rather a consequence of innocent confusion. But you've seen Russell, for instance, engaging in a pretty obvious rhetorical games with the term. So if you want to deny it, go for it. The same - ahem - character issues abound.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't think your two statements are equivalent, and I'm not willing to sign off on the second one.

If you want to make disagreement with you a character issue, I think that's a character issue in and of itself. (As well as a psychological one.)

[_EAllusion]

If you want to make disagreement with you a character issue, I think that's a character issue in and of itself. (As well as a psychological one.)

That's clearly a strawman. What I'm making a character issue is your denial of something that is blatantly true. That either makes you curiously incompetent in this specific instance, or disingenuous. In either case, I think it suggests that your judgment shouldn't be trusted when talking about similar issues. The reader can decide for themselves.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well, I don't see the two statements as equivalent. Make that a character issue if you want. (Rather weird to do so, in my view. But then, this is the home board of the Scratches, so I guess it fits.)

I cheerfully agree that some people use the term anti-Mormon in ways that I think can't be justified, and that I don't use the term as some others do. But I don't agree that they do it in a calculatedly "two-faced" and dishonest way. Which, I guess, makes me a person of poor character in your strange world.

[_EAllusion]

It means you are either lying, unintelligent, or most likely so blinded by bias that you can't see something that should be really, really clear. More or less, we're talking about the equivalent of a black rights activist who insists that O.J. Simpson was innocent.

[_harmony]

But I don't agree that they do it in a calculatedly "two-faced" and dishonest way. Which, I guess, makes me a person of poor character in your strange world.

No, it makes you a person who cuts his friends slack he doesn't cut people who aren't his friends. Pretty normal, that.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It means you are either lying, unintelligent, or most likely so blinded by bias that you can't see something that should be really, really clear. More or less, we're talking about the equivalent of a black rights activist who insists that O.J. Simpson was innocent.

It means that you're a dogmatist who regards failure to agree with you as prima facie evidence of moral defect or mental disability.

[_Daniel Peterson]

No, it makes you a person who cuts his friends slack he doesn't cut people who aren't his friends. Pretty normal, that.

I see misuse of the term anti-Mormon as evidence of confusion.

I tend to see most of the errors of anti-Mormons as evidence of confusion, as well.

That's consistent.

(Now, of course, I freely admit that I regard Ed Decker and Walter Martin and some of their fellow anti-Mormon demagogues as, to a surprising degree, flat-out -- and demonstrably -- dishonest. But I don't think the same thing is or was true of, say, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, or of most of the little mom-and-pop anti-Mormon ministries.)