GoodK says goodBYE

[_GoodK]

Creeping closer to the 1,000 post mark, I’ve decided that once I reach Godhood I will retire from this discussion board. I’d like to start a post to thank those that have made this place a truly memorable experience.

When I started posting at MAD, I had just recently broke up with the girl I had once hoped to marry. My life was up in the air. I was working in the financial industry, I had moved into a new house, and felt like I was starting life over. I looked to jolt my hibernating writing career back into gear. I figured that now that I was alone, I had plenty of time to write that I lacked before. I planned to write about my adventures in the Mormon Church and its gulag. While doing some research I stumbled upon the MAD website and was lured into posting on it for some reason. I didn't last very long as posters like Selek, LoaP, and BCspace bombarded me with annoying questions and ad hominems. It was something I was unprepared for. I think I got frazzled at times. But one particular thread I started there was the end of my MAD posting career and the beginning at Shady Acres. I was blocked and banished so fast that I never could pull those old posts up, but Scratch did a good job bringing them over:

As KimberlyAnn mentioned on another thread, the poster called "GoodK" has made quite a splash over on the aptly named MAD board, specifically on a terrific thread called, "Anti-Mormon: the label, what it means, and how it's used." Here is GoodK's opening post:

What does the label mean - and what is the difference between an anti-Mormon and a non-Mormon?
Can someone be a skeptic, or does that make them an anti-Mormon?

Why is the label used?

I suspect it is used because the term plays into the idea: "The righteous will be persecuted by the wicked, but God will lead his people, and his work will go forward."

I think the term is pretty rude.

This is a topic which has come up many times before, of course. Critics and skeptics frequently object to the term, since, as it is used by more rabid TBMs (e.g., Pahoran), it carries a bite akin to "anti-Semite." But some TBMs, and especially some Mopologists, don't want to commit to this particular semantic interpretation. They want to be able to freely dole out the term "anti-Mormon" without making a clear declaration as to its power to insult or harm---in short, they don't want to be held responsible for the phrase.

Here is "Scotty Dog" Lloyd weighing in:

The prefix anti- means "against." So if a person positions himself in overt opposition to (not just disagreement with) Mormonism, he has no reasonable grounds to object to being denoted as anti-Mormon.

This is what I think we might refer to as the "soft" definition of "anti-Mormon." I.e., it is safe, it just describes opposition, it isn't freighted with all sorts of negative and harmful and hurtful connotations.

But wait, here is Scotty L. waffling already:

Merely being skeptical about Mormonism does not necessarily make one an opponent of it.

Again, you would have to oppose, not just disagree with Mormonism for the definition to apply.

And here's GoodK making a solid point:

I don't think it is rude to call someone an anti-mormon who indeed considers themselves to be anti-Mormon, but I don't think people using the label care if the label is appropriate or not.

Can you guess what the TBM reply to this might be? Sure you can!

It makes no difference whether or not the person likes the term. If he is behaving in a way that puts him in active opposition to Mormonism, he is, by definition, anti-Mormon.

Uh, right. And it makes no difference whether LDS consider themselves to be "real Christians." If they embrace beliefs which are wildly divergent from traditional Christianity, then they are, by definition, not traditional Christians! Boy, isn't it fun how definitions can work?

A bit later, The Great Professor comes lumbering in:

What does the label mean - and what is the difference between an anti-mormon and a non-mormon?

There must be at least a dozen threads devoted to this topic.

A non-Mormon is, simply, not a Mormon. Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Catholics, Presbyterians, Sikhs, Jews, and Armenian Orthodox are all non-Mormons.

An anti-Mormon is opposed to Mormonism (and/or to Mormons). That's what the prefix anti- means. Very few Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Catholics, Presbyterians, Sikhs, Jews, or Armenian Orthodox are anti-Mormons.

We also speak of anti-coagulants, anti-abortionists, anti-Communists, antilock brakes, antihistamines, antacids, anti-bacterial soaps, anti-logging activists, anti-Semitism, antitrust laws, the nineteenth-century anti-Masonic movement, and hundreds of other such things.

Can someone be a skeptic, or does that make them an anti-mormon?

Being a skeptic doesn't necessarily make one an anti-Mormon.

Why is the label used?

For the same reason that words are typically used: to refer to things or actions in the real world, and, thus, to communicate.

I suspect it is used because the term plays into the idea : "The righteous will be persecuted by the wicked, but God will lead his people, and his work will go forward."

I know of no basis for your suspicion. It certainly isn't true in my case.

I think the term is pretty rude.

Do you also regard it as rude to use words like anti-fungal and anti-trust? Would it have been an insult to have called a member of the French Resistance "anti-Nazi" or to refer to a member of Christian Women for Life as "anti-abortion"?

Very interesting! Is DCP really willing to head down this rabbit hole? Does he really want to try and make the case that you get to call your opponent whatever you'd like, even if said opponent objects strenuously to the label?

Later, Scotty Dog slips up (which GoodK notices) and admits that, in fact, he actually does use the term "anti-Mormon" as derogatory, rather than purely descriptive:

If however, someone does behave in opposition to my religious faith, I reserve the right to use a serviceable term such as anti-Mormon to aptly and accurately describe that person.

I think this captures the spirit of my question rather well. It seems like the term is wielded as more than just an innocent definition like anti-trust, as Professor Peterson so cleverly put it.

Indeed. DCP's anxious flailing about reveals yet another weak spot in the Mopologists' verbal artillery. It seems clear that TBMs would like to place critics and skeptics on a par with the same kinds of "anti-Mormons" who were responsible for Haun's Mill and Carthage.

Here is another intriguing exchange:

This would be more convincing if people outside of Mormonism used the word too. In fact, it seems that only Mormons use the term

Robert McKay, formerly of Utah Missions Inc., referred to himself quite cheerfully as an anti-Mormon, and I've known others.

I haven't been able to find one self proclaimed anti-mormon on the web.

You can't have looked for very long.

Here's somebody who was once president of the National Anti-Mormon League:

http://www.digital-editions.com/HUNTINGTON.htm

And here's a statement from Rhonda M Abrams, who was at the time the Regional Director for The Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith -- and, manifestly, a Jew:

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/nccj.htm

Those took me less than a second to find.

Like I said, I think labeling someone a label that they don't think applies to them, or that doesn't apply to them is rude.

I've met appallingly racist people and disgustingly anti-Semitic people. They may or may not like being identified as bigots, racists, and/or anti-Semites.

Tough luck.

Hold on, though. Most of us here are well aware of the fact that DCP typically does not like to cite sources. Here's why:

F.Y.I neither of those links were to a website of someone who was labeling themself/themselves anti-mormon. Maybe you looked too quickly.

Tough luck?

Lol.... He quickly tries to backtrack and laugh the whole thing off:

I presume that the National Anti-Mormon League named itself. Do you have any reason to suggest otherwise? And the fact that they're probably defunct and, thus, lack a website, is reason to rejoice.

Give it up, GoodK. This is silly.

And the reply:

Sounds like you'd rather give up Professor. I don't see anything silly about me being right about the links you provided? They are in fact links to people labeling others as Anti-Mormons, which seems to prove my point.

You are more than happy to disconnect from this thread if you'd like, although it is a pleasure to speak to you.

Elsewhere, DCP elaborates a bit more on the definition of "anti-Mormon":

I see the term, "anti-mormon" as on par with "anti-Semite."

While the term anti-Semite refers to a hostility to Semitic people, and never is used to denote opposition to "Semitic architecture" or Semitic history for the simple reason that such concepts scarcely exist, the term anti-Mormon cannot be presumed to have the limited semantic range that you wish to assign to it because the adjective Mormon is used to refer to a wider range of phenomena than merely the animate human or personal.

In other words, this only re-affirms what I said earlier: Mopologists want to be able to put relatively benign critics of Mormon doctrines and policy on a par with the murderers at Carthage. It is more convenient for them, from a polemics standpoint, to lump everything together. DCP is a good writer, and he even boasts about his grasp of the English language at one point on the thread, and yet here he is advocating for hazy definitional clarity? It's either that, or he and S. Lloyd and other pro-"anti-Mormon" advocates are clinging to this usage out of pure spite. The two options available to TBMs here---definitional laziness or abject hate---don't seem very good, in my opinion.

Just in case there were any doubts remaining about whether or not DCP had gotten his butt handed to him, here is one of his de rigueur "see ya" posts:

Let me know when you are ready to explain why you don't think cult should be used in polemics, and anti-mormon should.

I've done so. Here on this thread. Twice. I've also explained my problems with the term cult at length, in print. That explanation is also now on line.

I leave for Egypt a week from today. I'll be gone for a little more than two weeks. By the time I return, I won't be interested in making any further attempts with you on this topic. If you want to engage what I've written on the subject here and elsewhere prior to my departure, I may be able to respond, though my time is running short. If you don't care to engage what I've written, that's perfectly fine with me.

Uh huh. And here is the coup de grace delivered by GoodK:

I contend that the term anti-Mormon has a perfectly clear meaning

The fact that words can be abused, or that they can't always be clearly and unambiguously defined, doesn't mean that they're useless. And the fact that they might carry bad connotations in some circles (or even in all circles) doesn't demonstrate them to be without value.

By contrast, I've argued at length and in some detail that the term cult (in the sense that evangelical countercultists use it, rather than in its bloodless and uncontroversial anthropology-of-religion sense) has no coherent meaning.

Now to quote your Mormonism as a cult paper: http://www.farmsresearch.com/publicatio ... chapid=549

"In at least two important ways, the terms "cult" and "Sekte" are alike: both words maintain an "in-group–out-group" division, and both pack a strong negative charge." -- so does the word anti-mormon, correct?

"But if Mormons and others are to be classed as "cults," the word must be defined. "

"The arbitrary and ad hoc character of such attempts at definition is clear..."

"But if polemics about "cults" inhibit an understanding of groups so designated, and close doors to them, such words occasionally turn against their own masters."

"the word remains "vague and unsatisfactory."

"Those polemicists who use the term "cult" seem—and like to seem—to be conveying by its use hard, objective information about the groups they so designate."

"Instead of the abused, and abusive, term "cult," we propose more neutral terminology, such as "religious movement," "religious group," or "church."


"Perhaps the best approach would be to apply to each group the name that its adherents use in referring to themselves."


That didn't take long.

Ouch! I haven't seen a smackdown of this caliber in quite some time. GoodK really eviscerated DCP's argument in short order. Truly, this was a sight to behold.

I got a couple of invites to join this discussion board, and came over and saw the above post from Scratch. I chatted with KA and a Bond briefly and really fell in love with Shady Acres. And dropping in on this place frequently has become a habit I've enjoyed for several months now. And you people have made it that cozy friendly bar where they know your name.

Mr. Scratch -

I don't even know where to begin. Scratch, I have admired your posts since day one. You can tell you are doing something right by the contempt held for you by the other side. I always make it a point to read a thread you start, knowing it will be up to par. I don't think I have ever seen you slack here. In fact, some of your best work was recently, with LoaP. His childish and persistent "Ms. Scratch" seemed never ending. Then, as I sat at my desk bored and skimming through some lengthy thread, I scroll past a picture of some goofy looking dude in a set of Mickey Mouse ears tilted off the side of his head like some rapper. I thought to myself Nooooo. Can't be. That can’t be a picture of him. You’ve held your own with DCP here better than anyone I’ve seen, and I will miss you.

Dartagnan

I’m not surprised to find myself a fan of Kevin. We have verbally assaulted one another here from the very beginning, but I do enjoy the substance, personality, and passion he puts into his posting. I have learned a lot from him, especially up in the Celestial Kingdom. I hope to see him publish something someday. I would definitely pick it up.

Dr. Shades

My dear Dr. Shades, how do I thank you. What a strange trip this has been! I think I may just let go of that grudge I’ve been holding on to since your Amy Winehouse posts.
No doubt you are a good man, and I’d love to take you to lunch one day. You are doing the Lord’s work.

Jersey Girl

Jersey Girl, where do I begin? My fiercest opponent at times, I have found myself waiting for you to chime in on threads I participate in. The board wouldn’t feel the same to me without you. Despite our disagreements, I really am quite fond of you. I am sure you are a wonderful person in real life. I’ll be sending my email address around; I really hope to keep in touch.

Moniker

I can only imagine how fascinating of a person you must be in real life! My favorite posters here, by far, I will truly miss you. Take care, don’t change a bit. Keep in touch.


Blixa

I wish we had the chance to get to know each other a little better. You always fascinate me with your perspective. And you made me think twice about putting on a hat. ;)

Bond

Bond, buddy, I’ll send you my email and we’ll most definitely have to stay in touch. Don’t sweat the ladies, man…

Nehor

The guy I loved to hate, then just started to love, I missed you while you were on your brief hiatus. Take care, and keep lightning up the mood around here with your pointless one-liners.

B&L

To be honest, I couldn’t stand you at first. You were a little to “anti” for my tastes, but as time as gone I’ve learned to appreciate your tone. I am glad you found happiness outside of the church. I’d love to stay in touch. Keep it up.

Infymus

Same goes for you. Your tone is a little much, mostly because I feel like it plays into the anti-Mormon stereotype to conveniently. But you are a smart guy. That’s what worries them. Take care.

Dude, Chap, and Seth – I hate to lump you all together but I don’t feel like I got to know any of you very well, but I have enjoyed posting on topics you three were involved in. I admire your smart, unrelenting, well spoken, and funny style.

Coggins/Droopy –

Coggins, you are a dummy. I hope you one day shed the angry zealot costume you put on when you come here, and learn to be tolerant of others. Take care.

KimberlyAnn

What a sweet lady KA is. I’m sorry if my anti-religious diatribes have offended you, I never thought any applied to you. I will truly miss your posts, the cute stories of your kids, and your kindness. You were one of the very first posters I spoke with here, and you were so nice. I hope to keep in touch.

Marg

Marg, I don’t know what to say either. You have been so kind to me. You have given advice, helped me out when I was loosing an argument, and shared personal stories with me. My online mom, lol. Please stay in touch. I will really miss you.

JAK

JAK, my long-winded friend ;)

Thank you so much for the book titles you sent me, thank you for taking the time to evaluate my arguments and point me in the right direction in the Celestial Kingdom. As a writer, plagiarism is up there with murder as far as serious crimes, and I never took the time to see for myself if you were guilty, but it doesn’t matter much to me. I appreciate all the knowledge you’ve shared with me. I wish you the best.

Dr. Steuss

Stu, you are a guy I tried not to like at first. But anyone that’s been here a while knows that this is impossible. You’re a cool cat; I’d definitely have a beer and a smoke with you. Hit me up on the myspace if you want to stay in touch. Keep up the good work.

Liz

Liz, you are a sweetheart. I will miss you.

Mercury

Merc, my buddy. We had some good times over in the Tom Leykis thread. You are a jerk, you know that? But hey, so am I to an extent. I would ask if you’ve seen Team America, but I’m sure you have. That last speech, about dicks and assholes, that’s you my friend. I hope you know there are no hard feelings on this end. I’m pretty sure we are more similar than different. If you are ever in LA, you better look me up.

Beastie

On my way out, I guess I’ll admit I have had a crush on Beastie for a while. Smart, funny, never boring, and an atheist. What else could you want? I wish you the best, I really do. Take care.

Guy Sajer
Guy, I am reminded how much I have to learn when I read your posts. I admire and respect you tremendously. Let’s have lunch some time, look me up when you are in LA.

Brother Crockett

Brother Crockett is a good man. I know this. I want the board to know that. I don’t believe everything he believes, but I know he is a good man with good intentions. Let’s do lunch soon. We’ll be in touch.

LoaP

I hope you figure it out sooner than later, LoaP. I hope you don’t feel like you’ve wasted too much of your life once you do.

Gad

Thanks for not making me look like the only A-hole that listens to Leykis. And thanks for being a well spoken poster, further helping the case for Leykis 101. It’s been a pleasure. I wish you the best.

Jason Bourne

Jason, I’ve never really figured out what your official stance is on the church, but I have lost interest and became more interested in your opinions. You are a likeable guy, from what you portray here, and you seem very well read. I’m glad to have “met” you here. All the best.

Skippy

Skip! My smilie loving, Angel’s hating friend! How I will miss you. Let’s keep in touch, ya?

Richard

Richard, you may just be the only EV that I really like ;)
The threads we were involved with up in the Celestial were great. Thank you. I hope to stay in touch, I would be lucky to have a friend like you. Take care.

Dan Peterson

Dan, I would never pretend to be able to put myself into your shoes and understand what it is like to be the online punching bag for Mopologetics. I had hoped to find you a little more friendly in our discussions online, but whatever. I still admire your intellect and dedication, and hope to have many more conversations with you in the future. I know you are not a bad person, or a dishonest person. I believe you whole heartedly believe what you say, and there is no shame in that. I’m offering you an e-handshake right now. You have my email address. Good luck at the debate in Vegas, wish I could be there.

I’ll keep posting here until I reach 1,000, so if there is anyone that I left out I will hopefully catch it and say so before then. I’ll probably keep my blog up and post my email address there once I really retire, so please email me. I hope to stay in touch with all of you. It truly has been a pleasure.

Best,

GoodK

[_Scottie]

Skippy

Skip! My smilie loving, Angel’s hating friend! How I will miss you. Let’s keep in touch, ya?

I hereby rescind my marriage proposal!!!

GO ANGELS!!!!

[_Moniker]

Sorry to hear you're leaving, GoodK. I think you bring a fresh perspective and appreciate another "young" person on the board.

Get ready for the insults, you're going to get them lobbed at you for posting a goodbye thread. No good deed ever goes unpunished. Wish you and Mercury could have made up -- maybe you two still shall! I'm unyieldingly optimistic! :)

[_Mister Scratch]

GoodK---

There's really no reason to leave. Feel free to stick around after you reach that grand summit of 1,000 posts. There's no shame in it. Getting 50,000 posts in less than two years, on the other hand... Well, you'll probably need the magic powers of a Mickey Mouse hat to accomplish that.

So: if you do decide to leave, I bid you a fond "adieu." If not, then party on!

[_The Nehor]

Nehor
The guy I loved to hate, then just started to love, I missed you while you were on your brief hiatus. Take care, and keep lightning up the mood around here with your pointless one-liners.

May be the most original compliment I've ever received. Thanks. May have to sig that. :)

[_skippy the dead]

Skippy

Skip! My smilie loving, Angel’s hating friend! How I will miss you. Let’s keep in touch, ya?

I hereby rescind my marriage proposal!!!

GO ANGELS!!!!

Sorry man, the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (such a lame name) are buttheads. Hate 'em. They aren't as bad as the Hated Dodgers, so I guess if you gotta root for one, it might as well be the Angels. But they got two things against them: they're in the AL, which isn't real baseball, and they're in SoCal. So poo on the Angels!

And GoodK - I've enjoyed your contributions to the board. PM me - we'll keep in touch.

[_Jason Bourne]

Best wishes Goodk.

Me I am just a hypocritical fringer LDS who I guess holds on to what I like and find of worth in my own attempts to figure out life. The rest I just let go or at least here, hypocritically gripe about.

You are a good young man and I hope you find happiness and joy wherever your path leads you.

[_GoodK]

Sorry to hear you're leaving, GoodK. I think you bring a fresh perspective and appreciate another "young" person on the board.

Get ready for the insults, you're going to get them lobbed at you for posting a goodbye thread. No good deed ever goes unpunished. Wish you and Mercury could have made up -- maybe you two still shall! I'm unyieldingly optimistic! :)

eh.. I don't mind the insults. I didn't want to post a goodbye but I was really unsure how long it would take me to get to 1,000 posts and I've already checked out mentally. I'm ready to go. It's like those last few days on the job before you quit, when you don't do anything and just count the minutes.

[_marg]

Definitely send me your email and we'll keep in touch..and you and your girlfriend (whomever at the time) have a place to stay if ever you want to check out Vancouver. B.C..

[_Scottie]

Skippy

Skip! My smilie loving, Angel’s hating friend! How I will miss you. Let’s keep in touch, ya?

I hereby rescind my marriage proposal!!!

GO ANGELS!!!!

Sorry man, the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (such a lame name)...

Well, I gotta agree with you on that.

I HATED when they changed from Anaheim Angels to LAAoA. Nothing like destroying any uniqueness in your team, eh?

However, I love them because they are, in my opinion, the best at fundamental baseball. They don't just load the roster with power hitters, which makes them fun to watch.

Plus they get all their AAA players from SLC, so I've seen a lot of them.