Pahoran wrote:
It's like this:
Anti = "opposed to."
Mormon = "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
Hence an anti-Mormon is anyone who is opposed to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The fatuousness of Pahoran's reasoning goes beyond the mere etymological fallacy ("anti-Mormon" = "opposed to the LDS Church"). Not only is "anti-Mormon" in reality a term of art in LDS circles, if we want to derive current meaning from the origin of words, then he is insulting Latter-day Saints. "Mormonite" was originally a term of scorn for the early followers of Joseph Smith. Here's an article by Leonard Arrington showing how when newspaper reports of the time talked about "Mormonites," they did not do so favorably:
https://byustudies.BYU.edu/PDFLibrary/1 ... 166fe9.pdfOr even better, check out how this 1850 booklet starts:
http://archive.org/stream/shorthistoryo ... 1/mode/2up
The Mormonites, or as they now profanely prefer to style themselves "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," originated in the present century ; they were founded by Joseph Smith, an American, of low birth, and no education. Their tenets are so wild and extravagant that nothing but the fact of so many thousands having given credit to them would make them worthy of a serious consideration.So if you are anti-Mormon, does that mean you are opposed to making fun of Joseph Smith's followers?
Pahoran's mistaken zeal in confusing etymology with meaning is also contrary to the expressed wishes of the LDS Church.
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide Please avoid the use of "Mormon Church", "LDS Church" or the "Church of the Latter-day Saints".
When referring to Church members, the term "Latter-day Saints" is preferred, though "Mormons" is acceptable. Note the irony that "Mormon News Room" tells people not to refer to "the Mormon Church." But regardless, here's Pahoran insisting that "Mormon" is equivalent to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," when President New S. Room tells us that we're not supposed to equate those terms.
The name of the Church was supposed to have been revealed by the Lord. That means the Lord wanted the members of his church to be called "Latter-day Saints." So it's kind of curious that Pahoran does not demand that critics of his cherished beliefs be referred to as "anti-Latter-day Saints." (For that matter, it's curious that we don't have an "I'm a Latter-day Saint" advertising campaign, or hear concerts by the "Latter-day Saint Tabernacle Choir.") Why not use the name allegedly revealed by the Lord?
Or if we really want to get into etymology equating to meaning, we could go to the Egyptian origins of "Mormon," which, as Egyptian speaker Joseph Smith explained,
means "more good." Since etymology is meaning, what is Pahoran really saying? Well, of course what he is saying is that people who dispute the faith-promoting narrative are "against more good." What does that mean, though? Anti-Mormons are in favor of good, they're just opposed to more of it? Perhaps anti-Mormons want less good, but still some good? These questions are so vexing. If only we had really super smart people like Gary Novak around to explain it all.