I’ve grown up around a large number of Mormons; I was in an LDS boy scout troop, played baseball with the local Mormon boys on their church’s baseball field, was great friends with a number of Tongan football players (boy did they make great linebackers ) and one thing I noticed that was rather consistent in their reaction to criticism of their church is that they’re quick to label you an “anti-Mormon”.
I’m curious, how exactly do Latter-day Saints define “anti-Mormon”? Is there any form of criticism that can escape being labeled as anti-Mormon by the faithful?
The terminology Anti-Mormon is usually thrown at you if you call them blasphemers for saying that God was once a man and that the bible is very inaccurate while they say that their book of Mormon is pristine.
Anti-Mormon is usually thrown at you if you also accuse them of heresy for teaching their people that they will become Gods after they die and only if they become a member of their church…
As you can see their is no way to address their religion with out being called anti-Mormon.
Good luck to you but if I was surrounded by so many Mormons as you, I think I would die…
Anti-Mormon, I am sure, would be like “anti” anything else. Someone who hates the Mormon for simply being Mormon. Some one who, instead of disagreeing with their actual beliefs and debating those create beliefs they do not hold and attacks those.
What is not anti-Mormon is disagreeing with the actual beliefs that their Church teaches.
You could say that you disagree with their beliefs and politely explain why. That you use charged words like “blasphemy” and “heresy” indicates to them that you don’t find them worthy of the charity normally afforded to human beings by default, which is what brings on the accusations of anti-Mormonism.
This isnt answering your question, but I would stay as far away from them as I can.
As you see, Nayrb, part of the problem is that a lot of people who would say that they just disagree with Mormons also end up saying that they wouldn’t touch them with a ten-foot-pole. The two don’t have to be linked, but the correlation probably makes a lot of Mormons wary.
I’ve heard that comment before, but it’s not been my experience. However, I (IMHO) suspect that among some LDS(s) it’s a reflexive/defensive response, especially if reaction to criticism independent of a context for discussion about LDS beliefs.
The half-dozen or so LDS-registered members who post here regularly, have never responded to me in a way that that indicates that they feel my position is merely based on being “anti-Mormon”.
That being said, I’ve seen comments that I interpret as being degrading or ridiculing Mormonism and I consider those to be “anti-Mormon” and those are, on occasion, responded to by LDS posters in kind.
Meanwhile, I have serious disagreements with many core beliefs of the LDS church, and my beliefs are, in fact, against or opposite or anti the Mormons’ belief. But that anti-Mormon’s-beliefs, and not anti-Mormon and I think most Mormons understand the difference.
a willingness to lie about, or misstate, the beliefs of the target religion and think that is just fine as long as the purpose is to defeat that religion, or keep other people from joining it.
a complete refusal to correct those misstatements or lies when told (by a true believer of the target faith) that they are incorrect.
Criticism of the target faith that includes insulting language and the use of perjoratives, like, oh…“CULT!” using negative, rather than neutral, language to describe beliefs and practices.
For a terrific example of the sort of thing that is defined as ‘anti,’ go see Jack Chick’s analysis of Catholicism, or look on CARM for just about anything.
There is a very large difference between a ‘critic’ and an ‘anti.’ For instance, posts by Rebecca and most other folks on this list are critical, but do not often fall on the ‘anti-’ side of the line. They will criticize the actual beliefs of the LDS church, (or their interpretation of them, at least) but not descend into ad hominem. Usually. Their opinions may be strongly worded, but not, generally, over the line of ‘anti.’
Zundrah’s posts, however, exhibit classic “anti-” rhetoric…like "I was surrounded by so many Mormons as you, I think I would die… ’ (this one is very mild, but you can see where the Mormons might look askance at someone who felt that way…) or–oh, go look at post # 68 on the “Mormons and Catholics Get along fine!” thread.
That one should be framed and used as an example of anti-ism, though one of the weirder and more mild ones. At least no swear words were used.
I guess, if I had to boil my definition of “anti–” down to one word, it would be “liar.” An anti is quite willing to lie–or do anything else s/he thinks is necessary to defeat the enemy (and an anti definitely thinks of the target belief system as ‘the enemy’) even if it is against the rules of the system s/he lives by usually, because of course the ends justify the means.
Most do, though I will admit that once a Mormon has had quite enough of being hit over the head with anti-rhetoric, or being suckered into a discussion that looks like it’s going to be civil—only to be blindsided by anti tactics, s/he starts to look at all criticism with a "you are an anti until you prove you aren’t’ attitude.
Catholics, I’ve noticed, tend to do the same thing after they’ve been clobbered too many times. Human beings, as a rule, follow my grandmother’s advice: if you are run over by a bulldozer once, forgive it–but don’t, for pete’s sake, STAND IN FRONT OF IT AGAIN. So–those of us who have been targeted over and over again by antis (no matter what religion we belong to) tend to treat all ‘oncomming traffic’ as being full of bulldozers–until they prove they aren’t.
That’s sad, but unfortunately we are right more often than we are wrong, all of us.
Disagreement and debate may, but only critics engage in those two things. Anti’s have no interest in debate; it’s one of the things that makes them an ‘anti’ rather than a simple ‘critic.’
as for 'no middle ground…" I disagree with that. I think I occupy that middle ground very neatly. I know the difference between a critic and an anti…and I treat the first with respect, and have absolutely none for the second. I don’t care WHAT group the anti is targeting; being an anti is about the ANTI, not the group s/he is after.
Don’t look now, but you were actually agreeing with that statement, not disagreeing with it.
Well, the dictionary definition of the prefix ‘anti-’ does reflect Z’s use. However, in terms of religious debate, we have to narrow it down some–if we don’t, then how do we differentiate honest critics from the fanatical 'liars for Jesus" idiots? Because there is a very big difference.
I am anti Mormon. I am also anti Baptist, Methodist, SDA, Lutheran, Atheist, ETC…
there are a good many things that I am anti in my stance. It does not mean that I dislike the people that are apart of these organizations it means I think these organizations are in error a great many things.
Being anti or opposed to something does not mean you dislike the members of those groups. There are people on this forum that are not catholic that I am very found of and have great respect for I also think they are wrong. It is fine to oppose one another, It is not fine to do so in a hateful way. There are those on here that almost force you to be hateful towards them and it is best to just not read there post or at least act as if you don’t