What makes someone an "Anti"?

[All-American]

Why not just go with what the word means? An anti-Mormon is one who opposes and/or fights against Mormonism.

If one insists upon qualifiers, I'd say that such opposition ought to be active and deliberate. For example, my Elder's quorum president will undermine more testimonies in a month than SU could possibly do in a lifetime, but because the damage he does to the church is a result of his dim-witted stupidity in spite of his good intentions, I wouldn't classify him as an Anti.

I doubt there's ever been a really good "anti." It may be that the church is going to be essentially unopposed from without. Even the most effective "antis" are the ones that were once members, but then left-- but then again, even those worth mentioning haven't really done that much. (I wonder if the net result of Fawn Brodie's works, for example, actually brought MORE people to the church by encouraging a reactionary movement amongst the LDS "intellects." It'd be an interesting study.)

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by All-American

Why not just go with what the word means? An anti-Mormon is one who opposes and/or fights against Mormonism.

If one insists upon qualifiers, I'd say that such opposition ought to be active and deliberate. For example, my Elder's quorum president will undermine more testimonies in a month than SU could possibly do in a lifetime, but because the damage he does to the church is a result of his dim-witted stupidity in spite of his good intentions, I wouldn't classify him as an Anti.

I doubt there's ever been a really good "anti." It may be that the church is going to be essentially unopposed from without. Even the most effective "antis" are the ones that were once members, but then left-- but then again, even those worth mentioning haven't really done that much. (I wonder if the net result of Fawn Brodie's works, for example, actually brought MORE people to the church by encouraging a reactionary movement amongst the LDS "intellects." It'd be an interesting study.)

So are you saying the location of the opposition is a qualifier? For example, if I had a problem with women not holding the priesthood. If I stated in EQ that I think women would better priesthood holders than men. Everyone would nod and laugh and agree. But if I stood outside the church with signs that said women would be better priesthood holders, I'd be labeled an "anti"? That is probably true.

So what about missionaries of other faiths. What if they come into your house to share their message. In sharing what they believe to be true, it is obvious that they think pretty much everything about Mormonism is wrong. Are they anti or does their intent have to be more sinister?

[SeattleUte]

Archetypical anti-Mormons like the Tanners and Steve Benson are ultimately not very harmful to the LDS Church. The reason is that arcana such as the "Kinderhook plates," the B of A scrolls, and "reformed Egyptian" becomes their all-consuming obsession. This only lends undue credence to the very nonsense they are attacking. The truth is that none of this is ultimately very interesting except to those who have been wounded by Mormonism. There is not much there there pure and simple. These old tiresome debates are as uninspiring as your average EQ lesson, because they limit themselves to engaging your average EQ nit wit on his terms. By expanding your outlook and placing Mormonism in a larger context the scales fall off of your eyes and it becomes very clear that Mormonism is just a more recent revolution in an age old cycle that has been repeating for 3,000 years and is slowly expiring of its own weight.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I toss out the term anti just to get under people's skin. But then, I am immature, juvenile and sophomoric. You're only as old as you act, ya know?

I do this too for the comedy. It's fun when you call super active mormon ladies like my mom "anti" whenever she has even the slightest criticism. She gets mad until she notices the grin on my face. I usually get smacked and a good laugh from her afterwards.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Archetypical anti-Mormons like the Tanners and Steve Benson are ultimately not very harmful to the LDS Church. The reason is that arcana such as the "Kinderhook plates," the B of A scrolls, and "reformed Egyptian" becomes their all-consuming obsession. This only lends undue credence to the very nonsense they are attacking. The truth is that none of this is ultimately very interesting except to those who have been wounded by Mormonism. There is not much there there pure and simple. These old tiresome debates are as uninspiring as your average EQ lesson, because they limit themselves to engaging your average EQ nit wit on his terms. By expanding your outlook and placing Mormonism in a larger context the scales fall off of your eyes and it becomes very clear that Mormonism is just a more recent revolution in an age old cycle that has been repeating for 3,000 years and is slowly expiring of its own weight.

I don't understand people like the Tanners or Steve Benson. Why spend all of your time and money on Mormonism? I realize they feel like they were duped and wasted alot of time and money on what they now believe to be a fairytale. So what do they do? They spend more time and money than they did while they were Mormons. Doesn't make any sense to me. By now they must have realized that Mormons don't listen to them. People that have already left the church worship them. You've got to assume that most people that go as far as having their names removed, won't go back anyway. So what have they accomplished?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

So are you saying the location of the opposition is a qualifier? For example, if I had a problem with women not holding the priesthood. If I stated in EQ that I think women would better priesthood holders than men. Everyone would nod and laugh and agree. But if I stood outside the church with signs that said women would be better priesthood holders, I'd be labeled an "anti"? That is probably true.

So what about missionaries of other faiths. What if they come into your house to share their message. In sharing what they believe to be true, it is obvious that they think pretty much everything about Mormonism is wrong. Are they anti or does their intent have to be more sinister?

No, location isn't the determining factor. The qualifier is that they are in active opposition to the church-- which thing will usually dictate your "position" in the long run.

As for missionaries of other faiths, if they are trying to share what they know and believe to be true, I don't see that as being anti; I don't see myself, for example, as having been anti-catholic for serving a mission in Spain. When they specifically target Mormonism to oppose it and seek to tear it down, that is, by definition, anti-Mormonism.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

By expanding your outlook and placing Mormonism in a larger context the scales fall off of your eyes and it becomes very clear that Mormonism is just a more recent revolution in an age old cycle that has been repeating for 3,000 years and is slowly expiring of its own weight.

To define someone as an "anti-Mormon" requires a definition of Mormon to which this someone can be placed in opposition. It's a semantics argument similar to defining Pro-Choice and Pro-Life in the abortion debate: nobody would choose to define him/herself as anti-life or anti-choice. Similarly, the LDS church membership casts certain (perceived or real) opponents as "anti-Mormon" in order to take advantage of the word's (literally) negative connotations. I'm not saying it's always an unjustified designation; rather, LDS are just as prone to use rhetoric to defend themselves as others are to attack them. All is fair in love, war, and religious dispute, I suppose.

To respond to an earlier post, I don't see SU as an "anti-" anything (if I may take such liberties in describing his persona). To define him in such a derivative way is overly simplistic and hardly does justice to his advocacy for placing Mormonism in a broader context. Those who define themselves by opposing Mormonism (or anything else) merit the label "anti-". Those whose ideas, research, and opinions touch LDS topics tangentially, albeit in a so-called detrimental way, are something else. Seattle's pro-secularism is hardly anti-Mormonism, strictly speaking.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Solon

To respond to an earlier post, I don't see SU as an "anti-" anything (if I may take such liberties in describing his persona). To define him in such a derivative way is overly simplistic and hardly does justice to his advocacy for placing Mormonism in a broader context. Those who define themselves by opposing Mormonism (or anything else) merit the label "anti-". Those whose ideas, research, and opinions touch LDS topics tangentially, albeit in a so-called detrimental way, are something else. Seattle's pro-secularism is hardly anti-Mormonism, strictly speaking.

Is that silver I hear jingling in your pockets?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Is that silver I hear jingling in your pockets?

I wish. I spew my heresy gratis.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Solon

To respond to an earlier post, I don't see SU as an "anti-" anything (if I may take such liberties in describing his persona). To define him in such a derivative way is overly simplistic and hardly does justice to his advocacy for placing Mormonism in a broader context. Those who define themselves by opposing Mormonism (or anything else) merit the label "anti-". Those whose ideas, research, and opinions touch LDS topics tangentially, albeit in a so-called detrimental way, are something else. Seattle's pro-secularism is hardly anti-Mormonism, strictly speaking.

I think that if it weren't for the contempt that so apparent in SU's tone and choice of words I would be tempted to agree. I think Waters is more on the right track when he suggests that there is a high level of bile towards the church there that SU knows he has to tone down if he wants people to continue to engage him on these topics. There has been push back in the past.

This is not to say that what he contributes has no value nor does the personal aspect have any bearing about whether he is right or wrong. Saying that SU is simply pro-secular only, I think, respectfully, is a reflection of your short tenure here.

As I say, I like SU and value his imput, but Waters has him more or less pegged even if he says it in jest, IMO.