What Is Anti-Mormon?

[lisajo]

Originally posted by Ari@Nov 11 2005, 12:20 PM

anti = against

against = contrary to

contrary = opposed

oppose = to express disagreement with or dislike of, or make an effort to stop      or prevent the activity

(when in doubt, consult Webster's) 

←

Very impresive Ari! I guess that ended the question LOL

[Guest Ari 2]

Originally posted by lisajo+Nov 11 2005, 01:29 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Ari@Nov 11 2005, 12:20 PM

anti = against

against = contrary to

contrary = opposed

oppose = to express disagreement with or dislike of, or make an effort to stop      or prevent the activity

(when in doubt, consult Webster's) 

←

Very impresive Ari! I guess that ended the question LOL

←

Hehe...ty lisajo

[lisajo]

Originally posted by Ari+Nov 11 2005, 12:36 PM-->

Originally posted by lisajo@Nov 11 2005, 01:29 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Ari@Nov 11 2005, 12:20 PM

anti = against

against = contrary to

contrary = opposed

oppose = to express disagreement with or dislike of, or make an effort to stop      or prevent the activity

(when in doubt, consult Webster's) 

←

Very impresive Ari! I guess that ended the question LOL

←

Hehe...ty lisajo

←

YW

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ari@Nov 11 2005, 12:20 PM

anti = against

against = contrary to

contrary = opposed

oppose = to express disagreement with or dislike of, or make an effort to stop      or prevent the activity

(when in doubt, consult Webster's) 

←

That hardly helps. My 11 year old knows what the word "anti" means. Just saying that someone who is opposed to Mormonism is an anti-Mormon is so overly simplistic vague as to make it nonsensical. Buddahists would be opposed to Mormons or parts of Mormonism as would Jews as would atheists and many Christians.

It is silly and illogical to even call critics anti-Mormons. It depends upon their motives, a critic can disagree without intending to cause harm. A more useful and reasonable definition would be:

An "anti" is someone who opposes for the sake of opposing – they have no interest in answers. So, anti-mormons tend to ask questions and not listen to the answers. And, because they have usually been answered in the past, they also tend to be annoying.

The label Anti-Mormon is a clinically accurate description of those who publish, preach, lie or otherwise distribute information to destroy the true Church of Jesus Christ. Or make it a business to profit from the distribution of anti-Mormon material." (antimormon.com)

I don't recall exactly but I think the term might have been coined by BH Roberts and that's the sort of thing, not merely being opposed to, that he had in mind.

[prisonchaplain]

I voted for none of the above. Understanding that the term "Anti-Mormon" is meant to be negative, in the universe of this website, I would contend that the term should be reserved for those who consistently ridicule, condemn, condescend and stereotype Mormonism and its people. They are hostile, and the come to deliver a message, not to engage.

My definition is intentionally narrow. To use LDS afterlife terminology, anti-Mormons are those destined for the outer darkness.

[Guest Ari 2]

The label Anti-Mormon is a clinically accurate description of those who publish, preach, lie or otherwise distribute information to destroy the true Church of Jesus Christ. Or make it a business to profit from the distribution of anti-Mormon material." (antimormon.com)

____________________________

That's what I said...not nonsensical after all, is it? lol

[Snow]

The label Anti-Mormon is a clinically accurate description of those who publish, preach, lie or otherwise distribute information to destroy the true Church of Jesus Christ. Or make it a business to profit from the distribution of anti-Mormon material." (antimormon.com)

____________________________

That's what I said...not nonsensical after all, is it? lol

←

uh, no

That's not what you said. You simply quoted a dictionary and implied that anyone who disagrees with us is an anti-Mormon.

Some non-members think we are paranoid enough as it is without that kind of simplistic seige mentality.

Note: As I recall you chastised someone else for cutting and pasting.

[Jason]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 14 2005, 10:11 AM

uh, no

That's not what you said. You simply quoted a dictionary and implied that anyone who disagrees with us is an anti-Mormon.

Some non-members think we are paranoid enough as it is without that kind of simplistic  seige mentality.

Note: As I recall you chastised someone else for cutting and pasting.

←

Seems obvious that this poster thrives on her "persecution complex". Imaginary persecution is better than no persecution.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

The label Anti-Mormon is a clinically accurate description of those who publish, preach, lie or otherwise distribute information to destroy the true Church of Jesus Christ. Or make it a business to profit from the distribution of anti-Mormon material." (antimormon.com)

____________________________

That's what I said...not nonsensical after all, is it?  lol

---------------------------------------------------------------

SNOW: uh, no

That's not what you said. You simply quoted a dictionary and implied that anyone who disagrees with us is an anti-Mormon.

Some non-members think we are paranoid enough as it is without that kind of simplistic  seige mentality.

Note: As I recall you chastised someone else for cutting and pasting.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nit-picking again... can't share the space or your toys??... LOL

[Josie]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Nov 14 2005, 12:55 AM

  Understanding that the term "Anti-Mormon" is meant to be negative, in the universe of this website, I would contend that the term should be reserved for those who consistently ridicule, condemn, condescend and stereotype Mormonism and its people.  They are hostile, and the come to deliver a message, not to engage.

This definition I agree with.

But to say that we condemn anti-mormons to outer darkness is not quite true. First of all, we do not have the right to condemn anyone. That is God's call, not ours. And "outer darkness" as you put it is reserved for a very few.

I think that is one thing that sets Latter-day Saints apart from other faiths. We believe that all born to this earth will be ressurected and received a glorified body and will receive some form of glory after this life, except a very few that will be in this "outer darkness" or "hell". Which I think is a further indication of God's love for his children.

[prisonchaplain]

But to say that we condemn anti-mormons to outer darkness is not quite true. First of all, we do not have the right to condemn anyone. That is God's call, not ours. And "outer darkness" as you put it is reserved for a very few.

So much for my trying to make a clever analogy. I did not mean to imply that Mormons condemn anti-Mormons. My suggestion was that the term should be narrowly applied to the truly hostile, much as the outer darkness, in LDS theology, is reserved for a select few who are truly wicked.

I think that is one thing that sets Latter-day Saints apart from other faiths. We believe that all born to this earth will be ressurected and received a glorified body and will receive some form of glory after this life, except a very few that will be in this "outer darkness" or "hell". Which I think is a further indication of God's love for his children.

←

You're absolutely right. This aspect of your theology is attractive to many. It is a marked distinction from most of Christianity, which proclaims "It is appointed on to man once to die, and then the judgment." Ultimately, it's heaven or hell, depending on one's response to the simple Good News of Jesus.

On the other hand, Universalism is, in some ways, even more attractive. It says even Hitler goes to heaven. Why? "Can anyone out sin the love of God?"

Of course, attractiveness has nothing to do with truth. What does God really say? I can appreciate nice-sounding doctrines. However, I will only "die to self" for those truths that I am convinced are absolutely from God. Some of those teachings may not be so attractive.

[Guest Ari 2]

Originally posted by Snow@Nov 13 2005, 10:36 PM

That's not what you said. You simply quoted a dictionary and implied that anyone who disagrees with us is an anti-Mormon.

Some non-members think we are paranoid enough as it is without that kind of simplistic  seige mentality.

Note: As I recall you chastised someone else for cutting and pasting.

←

______________________________

That is EXACTLY what I said...quote or not. And since when do dictionaries imply?!

Again, "paranoid" is a label used by liberals to discredit any one with whom they disagree.

If you asked my husband, you'd know there's nothing simple or simplistic about me. Nor am I mental.

I chastised no one. Are you chastising me?

[Guest Ari 2]

Originally posted by Jason@Nov 14 2005, 10:26 AM

Seems obvious that this poster thrives on her "persecution complex".  Imaginary persecution is better than no persecution. 

←

__________________________

Your fear of manicurists is showing.

[Snow]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Nov 14 2005, 01:09 PM

So much for my trying to make a clever analogy.    I did not mean to imply that Mormons condemn anti-Mormons.  My suggestion was that the term should be narrowly applied to the truly hostile, much as the outer darkness, in LDS theology, is reserved for a select few who are truly wicked.

←

Hear hear - the voice of reason.

[Ray]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Nov 14 2005, 01:09 PM

I did not mean to imply that Mormons condemn anti-Mormons.  My suggestion was that the term should be narrowly applied to the truly hostile, much as the outer darkness, in LDS theology, is reserved for a select few who are truly wicked.

So how do you define "truly hostile"?

Are you limiting your definition of that word to only those people who openly display anger or violence, without even trying to cover it up?

What about people who crack jokes to make fun of our beliefs with a smile in their eyes?

And what about people who try to put their arm around us and speak in a calm tone while trying to show us how “wrong” we are and that we should simply and peacefully “come along” to where they want us to be?

I think “hostile” forces against us are much the same as “hostile” forces against anyone else, and not all “hostile” forces openly broadcast their intentions to defeat us or that they are in effect working against us.

Or in other words, there are infiltrators and snipers who work in secret, as well as front line infrantry troops who would rather just openly beat us.

As it was recently stated in a Conference address...

Beware of the evil behind smiling eyes.

[prisonchaplain]

So how do you define "truly hostile"?

Are you limiting your definition of that word to only those people who openly display anger or violence, without even trying to cover it up?

Yes, basically, I am.

What about people who crack jokes to make fun of our beliefs with a smile in their eyes?

One person's humor is another person's mockery. You will have to discern whether the conversation or time you give someone is fruitful or not. However, you may miss out on potential blessing by quickly dismissing someone's insensitive humor as anti-Mormonism.

And what about people who try to put their arm around us and speak in a calm tone while trying to show us how “wrong” we are and that we should simply and peacefully “come along” to where they want us to be?

Most people think they are right. Would you not be pleased if you were able to draw an agnostic, a non-LDS Christian, or any uncommitted seeker into the LDS fold? If someone is calmly trying to pull you away from your faith, you might try pulling him/her calmly towards your faith.

I think “hostile” forces against us are much the same as “hostile” forces against anyone else, and not all “hostile” forces openly broadcast their intentions to defeat us or that they are in effect working against us.

Or in other words, there are infiltrators and snipers who work in secret, as well as front line infrantry troops who would rather just openly beat us.

If by infiltrator, you mean someone who pretends to be LDS, but is not, you have a point. However, if you are going to label all who may disagree with you, or may question you, or who may currently bare a different religious tag than yours, you might find yourself inexplicably humming "It's a small world after all."

Beware of the evil behind smiling eyes.

Let me see if I'm hearing correctly. Don't be so worried about Be more worried about

[Ray]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain+Nov 16 2005, 02:30 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Nov 16 2005, 01:33 PM

So how do you define "truly hostile"?

Are you limiting your definition of that word to only those people who openly display anger or violence, without even trying to cover it up?

Yes, basically, I am.

Okay, then that’s how I’ll interpret your use of the phrase “anti-Mormon” when I hear you say that, but since I personally believe there are also other ways for someone to show that they are against us, then I may be referring to something other than that when I refer to someone as being “anti-Mormon”.

Originally posted by prisonchaplain+Nov 16 2005, 02:30 PM-->

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 16 2005, 01:33 PM

What about people who crack jokes to make fun of our beliefs with a smile in their eyes?

One person's humor is another person's mockery. You will have to discern whether the conversation or time you give someone is fruitful or not. However, you may miss out on potential blessing by quickly dismissing someone's insensitive humor as anti-Mormonism.

I try to be very careful about making “quick” decisions while trying to understand other people, but after communicating with someone for a while I think I can pretty much get to know whether or not someone truly is “anti-Mormon”.

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Nov 16 2005, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 16 2005, 01:33 PM

And what about people who try to put their arm around us and speak in a calm tone while trying to show us how “wrong” we are and that we should simply and peacefully “come along” to where they want us to be?

Most people think they are right. Would you not be pleased if you were able to draw an agnostic, a non-LDS Christian, or any uncommitted seeker into the LDS fold? If someone is calmly trying to pull you away from your faith, you might try pulling him/her calmly towards your faith.

Yes, a lot of people think they are right, when in fact they are wrong, as far as our Lord is concerned, and I do try to get people to come to our Lord instead of following our adversary. But I was simply trying to illustrate how people can be on the side of our adversary, without openly displaying anger or violence.

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Nov 16 2005, 02:30 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Nov 16 2005, 01:33 PM

I think “hostile” forces against us are much the same as “hostile” forces against anyone else, and not all “hostile” forces openly broadcast their intentions to defeat us or that they are in effect working against us.

Or in other words, there are infiltrators and snipers who work in secret, as well as front line infrantry troops who would rather just openly beat us.

If by infiltrator, you mean someone who pretends to be LDS, but is not, you have a point. However, if you are going to label all who may disagree with you, or may question you, or who may currently bare a different religious tag than yours, you might find yourself inexplicably humming "It's a small world after all."

I’m referring to all who think they are “Christians” when in deed they show they are not, and people like that can come from our church as well as any other church or group of people who profess to follow Christ.

And actually, the world is the same size, it’s just that a war is going on here between two opposing sides.

Originally posted by prisonchaplain+Nov 16 2005, 02:30 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Nov 16 2005, 01:33 PM

Beware of the evil behind smiling eyes.

Let me see if I'm hearing correctly. Don't be so worried about Be more worried about

No, I didn’t say “don’t be so worried about” [fill in the blank] and “be more worried about” [fill in the blank]. I think we should be worried, or I would say “on guard”, against all hostilities from the adversary of our Lord, no matter what form that hostility may take.

And btw, some people will openly admit that they don’t follow Jesus Christ as their Lord, so judging who is with who isn’t always all that hard.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Lets cut back on the quotes a little... takes less space and is faster to the information.. of the new post.

[lisajo]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Nov 16 2005, 01:30 PM

Beware of the evil behind smiling eyes.

Let me see if I'm hearing correctly. Don't be so worried about Be more worried about

←

In my own exsperiances, (this is only mine i'm not speaking for others)

I have found here were i live they start out with you as the nice smiley guy...befriend you then BOOM! When you dont listen to them that is when they turn ugly and debates start....Then they say nasty things to you when your at the post office ETC. One time i had made a very good friend.....so i thought, I went to her house one day which i had done several times, and on her book shelfs were many anti mormon books, one was about how to bring mormons into the light ...or something like that, she did not know i saw these books...she was out of the room when i seen them.....a few min. laters ladys from her church showed up to talk me out of my relgion ( iguess they were going to do an exercizim LOL) It was all a set up....I just looked at them and said GOODBYEEEEEEEEE Needles to say we are no longer good friends.

Hey wait Chap, your not the devil behind smiling eyes are you? LOL J/K

[prisonchaplain]

Hey wait Chap, your not the devil behind smiling eyes are you? LOL J/K 

Who me? No. I try to be straightforward, up front, and all that. Maybe it's old age, but I've come to realize that everybody doesn't have to agree with me, and I don't have to agree with everybody. Perhaps most important, people will listen to me if I listen to them. I may sound like I'm plagiarizing from the "Everything I Ever Needed to Know I Learned in Kindgarten" book, but this approach really does work for me.

Bye the bye, in spite of this string about anti-Mormons, and another about Infiltrators, I have never felt unwelcomed or under suspicion here. There seems to be a healthy amount of liberty here for folk to express themselves, without towing a party line.

Bottom line: Kudos Applause and Affection for an intelligent, challenging, yet friendly website like ldstalk.com

[lisajo]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Nov 16 2005, 03:34 PM

Hey wait Chap, your not the devil behind smiling eyes are you? LOL J/K  

Who me? No. I try to be straightforward, up front, and all that. Maybe it's old age, but I've come to realize that everybody doesn't have to agree with me, and I don't have to agree with everybody. Perhaps most important, people will listen to me if I listen to them. I may sound like I'm plagiarizing from the "Everything I Ever Needed to Know I Learned in Kindgarten" book, but this approach really does work for me.

Bye the bye, in spite of this string about anti-Mormons, and another about Infiltrators, I have never felt unwelcomed or under suspicion here. There seems to be a healthy amount of liberty here for folk to express themselves, without towing a party line.

Bottom line: Kudos Applause and Affection for an intelligent, challenging, yet friendly website like ldstalk.com

←

AHHHHHHH your just to cool not to like !!!

[Guest Ari 2]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Nov 16 2005, 03:34 PM

Bye the bye, in spite of this string about anti-Mormons, and another about Infiltrators, I have never felt unwelcomed or under suspicion here.  There seems to be a healthy amount of liberty here for folk to express themselves, without towing a party line.

←

______________________________

I've never thought of you as either an infiltrator or an anti-Mormon, chaplain...

You're always polite, I've never heard you criticize anyone, and you don't deal in hate, which I appreciate. :)

[Ray]

prisonchaplain,

For what it’s worth, I consider you to be a truly nice person, as far as I can tell. But the true test is not in what I think, nor even in what you think, but in what our Lord thinks about you, which will become evident by seeing whether or not you will receive everything He has. And although that might seem kinda backwards, it's only because He already desires to share everything He has with us, so it’s only an unwillingness to come unto Him and receive what He has which holds us back.

And btw, I hope you will understand what I just said in the spirit in which I gave it.

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 15 2005, 07:32 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-prisonchaplain@Nov 14 2005, 01:09 PM

So much for my trying to make a clever analogy.      I did not mean to imply that Mormons condemn anti-Mormons.  My suggestion was that the term should be narrowly applied to the truly hostile, much as the outer darkness, in LDS theology, is reserved for a select few who are truly wicked.

←

Hear hear - the voice of reason.

←

BIZ: I agree with this statement. An anti-mormon would be a hater. They would be the sort that drove them out of Nauvoo. It would be akin to being a racist. Simply disagreeing with the doctrines or holding a different opinion would not be enough.

[Snow]

Hi Biz,

I have to qualify my acceptance of prisonchaplain's definition. He later said he would limit it to those who were violent or angry. That hardly covers all the bases. There are a good many evangelical antimormons who lie about the church (here I am thinking about Ed Decker and Walter Martin to name but a very few of the many) and seek to denigrate it and harm it but who appear to be happy about it all.

Now the LDS Church disagrees with Catholicism or Protestantism on a good many issues but I doubt you can find any modern examples of the Church seeking to cause harm to them. I don't even know of any examples of the Church being specifically anti-anybody else in the early days but the language of the time was pretty firery but certainly tame compared to the way others treated Mormons - even then.

So the Church - while believing that we are the only ones that are wholly and truly correct, goes about it's business of self-promotion without denigrating others (except through unspoken inference). But other's are not so mature or generous towards us and just because then are bug-eyed and violent does mean they aren't trying to harm us.

Just to beat it into the ground - by all mean criticize and disagree but be fair and reasonable about it and apply the same standard to yourself as you apply to us.