What makes someone an "Anti"?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

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.

Did anyone catch the foregoing chiasma?

I assume the Biblical allusion was lost on no one.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

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.

It’s a valid point that I don’t know Seattle as well as most on this board.

So, is it the "contempt" that makes one an anti-Mormon? I honestly don’t know. Or is it intent?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Solon

It’s a valid point that I don’t know Seattle as well as most on this board.

So, is it the "contempt" that makes one an anti-Mormon? I honestly don’t know. Or is it intent?

They assume that if someone is evangelical about their world view and it excludes the possiblity of JS being what he said he was that that's "anti-Mormon."

James Wood refers to the "fraudulence and nonsense" at the heart of Mormonism and some here would call him a "religious bigot."

But there is no compunction about such themes as "Great Apostasy," "Restored Church," "priesthood," and "testimony."

I think even Benson and the Tanners are not really "anti-Mormon" at all in the same sense that people are anti-Semitic when they talk about Jews being greedy and shady and a Fifth Column. If you're bent on going around announcing to the world the claims Mormonism makes and aggressively proseletising those views including trying to get into their kids' heads, folks are entitled to take a hard look and engage in a reasoned dialogue.

To test religion's claims with reason and empricism is a long and noble tradition and the "restoration" of that tradition is what led to America itself. No religion gets a free pass, especially those effectively preaching a form of biblical literalism.

Mormonism's relationship with reason and modernity is of course no easier than it ever has been for any religion. It's easier for Mormonism to delude itself that it is different because it came about in the midst of the Enlightenment, in fact reacting to it, and (superficially) adapted some of its nomenclature and perspectives to its own purposes which do not differ from Mormonism's (unrecognized) forebears.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

I think most people agree that the term "anti-Mormon" is way overused. How far does someone have to go to actually deserve the term? For example, I wouldn't consider someone an "anti" if he disagrees with church doctrine or even tells me he thinks JS made up the whole story. I remember hearing all the time in seminary how the ACLU is anti. That one still cracks me up. I wonder if when Catholics see missionaries they think of them as "anti-Catholics". I think the term was made up to discredit dissenters. Label them "anti" and their credibilty is lost. To me, to deserve the term "anti-Mormon", someone would have to go to great lengths to try to destroy the church. Making a few statements in the press or to friends wouldn't qualify.

In my opinion you're on the right track, labelling anyone anti-Mormon or anti-Anything is just a way for people to label people and prejudice another's opinion. Whoever is doing the labelling is saying, "don't listen to them because they are anti-" and closing their mind to what that person has to say and attempting to close your mind as well. If they think that person's points are bunk, then I think they should refute them, don't resort to mindless labelling. Personally I think it shows they are afraid of the real truth.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

But there is no compunction about such themes as "Great Apostasy," "Restored Church," "priesthood," and "testimony."

To test religion's claims with reason and empricism is a long and noble tradition and the "restoration" of that tradition is what led to America itself. No religion gets a free pass, especially those effectively preaching a form of biblical literalism.

Exactly. "Great Apostasy" and "Restored Church" are terms loaded with rhetorical effect. You can't throw these terms around and not expect to draw some heat.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Did anyone catch the foregoing chiasma?

I assume the Biblical allusion was lost on no one.

Well done. I don't really understand LDS (FARMS) obsession with this feature, as if it somehow proves the age of the Book of Mormon. If I were an anti-Mormon, and I were writing an anti-Mormon tract on the Book of Mormon, I would use the presence of chiasmus to show that the author of the book was Classically trained. There are far more allusions to the Classical world in the book than there are to the Hebrew world, in my opinion.

But, then again, I'm not an anti-Mormon writer of anti-Mormon literature.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Solon

Well done. I don't really understand LDS (FARMS) obsession with this feature, as if it somehow proves the age of the Book of Mormon. If I were an anti-Mormon, and I were writing an anti-Mormon tract on the Book of Mormon, I would use the presence of chiasmus to show that the author of the book was Classically trained. There are far more allusions to the Classical world in the book than there are to the Hebrew world, in my opinion.

But, then again, I'm not an anti-Mormon writer of anti-Mormon literature.

I wanted to show that creating chiasmus is no big deal. In fact, if you google the word mostly you get Mormon apologetics grasping at straws. I had a guy at FARMS admit over on the FAIR boards that chiasmus proved nothing because they basically just involved repeating a phrase.

With respect to your Classical allusions point, again, what's Classical, and what's modern is often inseparable conceptually. We allude to Classical thought all the time without realizing it. In JS's time there was a lot of enthusiasm about rediscovering this part of our past (as well as ancient Egypt, etc., essentially all of antiquity) and much Classical thought was in the air and absorbable by osmosis.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

With respect to your Classical allusions point, again, what's Classical, and what's modern is often inseparable conceptually. We allude to Classical thought all the time without realizing it. In JS's time there was a lot of enthusiasm about rediscovering this part of our past (as well as ancient Egypt, etc., essentially all of antiquity) and much Classical thought was in the air and absorbable by osmosis.

Definitely, but I was alluding more to the obvious repetition of stories from Classical Greece and Rome in Book of Mormon text - like Aristomenes of Messenia, the brave military leader of a doomed people who buried metal plates with his people's sacred rites on them, promising that as long as the plates were preserved, the Messenians would eventually return to inherit the land of their fathers (see Pausanias for the story); or the Roman story of the rape of the Sabine women / wicked priests of Noah; or Alma's discussion of king-men vs. democracy-men and Thucydidean paradigms of civil war as a result of democrats vs. oligarchs . . . . etc. . .

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Solon

Definitely, but I was alluding more to the obvious repetition of stories from Classical Greece and Rome in Book of Mormon text - like Aristomenes of Messenia, the brave military leader of a doomed people who buried metal plates with his people's sacred rites on them, promising that as long as the plates were preserved, the Messenians would eventually return to inherit the land of their fathers (see Pausanias for the story); or the Roman story of the rape of the Sabine women / wicked priests of Noah; or Alma's discussion of king-men vs. democracy-men and Thucydidean paradigms of civil war as a result of democrats vs. oligarchs . . . . etc. . .

And you also have Moroni wearing a toga when he visited JS.

[Indy Coug]

"Anti-Mormon" doesn't necessarily decribe WHAT they say, but WHY they're saying it.