huckelberry wrote:Niadna, I can certainly respect the general hope you have for what discussion and debate should be or should be hoped to be. There is always the problems that different viewpoints on things people actually care about can create clashes and can spill over into what may appear as disrespect. To consider reality that can spill over in frustration into actual disrespect at times. It is well to occasionally repeat the hope.
The subject of Mormonism has a number of subjects that can be seen differently by different people. Well meaning people may see anothers actual view as perversely negative.Did Brigham Young order, suggest or was he not connected to Mountain Meadows? This board is willing to discuss (has) this and will not block statements about it pleasant or not. Ones persons reasonable will not always be another persons reasonable.
I suspect people are wary of the distinction critic and antimormon because the boundary is vague and the nonbeliever can cross from one side to the other. May find it necessary some times.
I think we are all aware of the extreme antimormons. Though anybody can post here this board does not attract that sort of person. I cannot say never.
There have been times things said about Christianity have offended me. I think it is best to realize that allowing people to say what they really think is going to result in offense sometimes. It is best to look past the offense to hear the persons view. Sometimes it is best to allow some disagreements to just be. Trying to understand people and the life we share is not a matter of winners and losers.
I was not suggesting censorship or any sort of moderation change. That would be rather presumptuous of me, to say the very least. For crying out loud...they let ME in!
As well, I think (not in the OP, but later) that I mentioned that it's the acts I classify, because I can't really judge motives? You are quite right; someone can post 'like a critic" one minute....and the next post can be decidedly anti the next.
However, I do think that the line between 'critic,' 'anti' and 'extreme anti' isn't all THAT vague. I THINK....that if one considers the dividing line to be ad hominem attacks between 'critic' and 'anti,' one is safe. As well, I believe that the dividing line between 'anti' and 'extreme anti' would be the threat of, approval of, or participation in physical opposition that causes, or might cause, harm.
These dividing lines aren't vague, at all, and can certainly be identified easily enough.
Here's an example from another forum that might illustrate this: (not a specific example, but an ongoing meme)
Critic: Joseph Smith had many wives, including two fourteen year olds. I think that polygamy is wrong, not condoned by God, and illustrates his unfitness to call himself a prophet. (as you can see, the classification 'critic' can include some very strong opinions...;) )
Anti: Joseph Smith was a pedophile and a sex pervert, and Satan probably told him to get as many women pregnant as he could. He was ALSO a traitor.
Extreme anti: He deserved what he got when the mob, disgusted by his going after young girls, shot him. I wish I had been one of them...and if a Mormon talks to MY daughter, I'll shoot him right where it would do the most good (this last was a very real threat by a very real person, by the way...not exaggerating a bit here).
As I mentioned, I don't think the 'lines' between the groups are all that broad or vague.